Posted by : David Guyll April 01, 2015

Though God of War is billed as a "third person action-adventure game", it can be better described as a culturally appropriated, misogynistic toxic male power fantasy: Kratos, a very muscular, very abled, whiter-than-white man slaughters hordes of monsters in hopes of being able to just write off the unforgivable crime of killing his own wife.

The start of the game has Kratos fighting across numerous wrecked ships, and right off the bat the game shows its true colors in a not-so-subtle way. Ships are often referred to as she, so by depicting all of the ships damaged beyond repair the game's creator is trying to reinforce the notion that women are damaged and useless.

Unfortunately, and predictably, it doesn't stop there.

The "ships" (i.e. women) are under attack by a hydra (i.e. a phallus), which is symbolic of how all women everywhere are constantly under attack and oppressed by The Patriarchy. The many "heads" of the hydra continually penetrate the hulls of these "ships" in order to devour the white men inside. While killing men isn't, never has been, and never will be an issue, because as we all know that when men die it's the women that suffer the most.

No, it's the symbolism that's problematic, as the game is subconsciously trying to illustrate that it's "okay" to tear unborn fetuses from pregnant women and devour them. Mind you some of this happens in the background while you are completely safe from harm, which also means that the game is inviting you to watch.

Eventually Kratos makes it to the end of the level, where he must fight several hydra heads bursting from yet another derelict ship. Unlike before, the combination of the feminine ship with the masculine hydra is in fact symbolizing this particular ship as a transperson. So, it's no surprise that Kratos must penetrate (i.e. rape) and destroy each of the hydra heads in order to progress.

Upon completion of this level the game fast forwards to show Kratos surrounded by nude, inebriated women. It's no stretch of the imagination that he's had his way with them while they were under the influence, which means that they were unable to provide continuous, enthusiastic consent, showcasing yet another example of rape culture and women as objects in media.

Kratos angrily storms to the deck of the ship, where Athena uses a statue to communicate with him. As a goddess Athena could have appeared to Kratos in person, but that would both give her agency and not objectify her, and we just can't have that. Kratos wants the memory of him brutally murdering his wife removed from his mind, because to him--and by extension, the game's creator--women are again merely objects to be used and discarded when convenient for a white, straight man.

Athena, despite being a female goddess, actually agrees to this, so long as Kratos defeats Ares for her. Ares is currently destroying her city, and while she claims that she could handle him on her own (after all women are exactly as physically capable as men, having made up at least half of all viking warriors), Zeus has removed her agency (surprise surprise), forcing her to rely on a mere mortal man to do a goddess's work.

Kratos accepts, and sets out yet another path of wanton destruction and slaughter so that he, an entitled, privileged, straight white man can selfishly write off his cruel misdeeds. Along the way he deals with generic undead and minotaurs, and a host of clearly feminine monsters like harpies, gorgons, and sirens, all of which he dispatches in a needlessly brutal fashion.

Misogyny and oppression at the press of a button!
While there are countless instances of misogyny, sexism, racism, female objectification, oppression, and victimization, for the sake of brevity, and both your physical and mental well-being, I'm only going to highlight a tiny fraction of them.

The first occurs early on, where Kratos is forced by Aphrodite to fight Medusa. You can't avoid Medusa, as Aphrodite erects a magical barrier that prevents you from continuing until you rip off her head, which is intended to reinforce a common misconception that women plot and backstab each other. Once you finally claim her head, you not only carry it around for the rest of the game, but certain sections will require you to use it as if it were just any other item.

To repeat: you are carrying a woman's head around and using it like an item, something you would never see happen with a man's head.

I guess I'm surprised and relieved this is the only thing he uses it for.
In another part of the game a group of sirens prevent you from locating a horn that summons a temple bound to the back of a male titan, who is forced to bear it for all eternity. Obviously since it's a male titan this wouldn't normally be an issue, but titans are few in number, making them a minority: do I even have to make the comparison between oppressed minorities and slavery?

Near the end of the game, after crawling out of Tarterus (which you accomplish by, in an act of toxic masculinity, kicking a poor male soul) you confront Ares. To beat him you end up harnessing the power of Pandora's box. For those not in the know, Pandora's box is a blatantly sexist and misogynistic Greek legend in which a woman named Pandora opens a box containing all the ills that plague the world, after being explicitly told not to.

Of course when Kratos opens it nothing bad happens: instead he gains additional power that allows him to grow in size and overcome Ares.

We get it: women can't do anything right.
Finally, after defeating Ares, Kratos discovers that Athena isn't going erase his memories, though she still graciously forgives his sins. But, as a straight, white, entitled man this predictably doesn't satisfy him, and he tries to kill himself. Yep, it's more toxic masculinity: instead of talking about his problems, Kratos is opting to take the easy way out, without considering how his death will affect the women around him.

But, in yet more acts of kindness, Athena both spares him from death and elevates him to godhood, which of fucking course Kratos still refuses to be thankful for, leading to sequels and prequels that only serve to repeat and reinforce the countless social justice issues that plagued this game.

And Now For Something Completely Different
For the handful that haven't figured it out by now, this article is entirely satire. I in no way believe any of the above: God of War was a fucking awesome, incredible game, and I recommend it to anyone that's a fan of the action-adventure genre (enjoying Greek mythology is merely an added perk).

I've thoroughly enjoyed almost all of them, though Ascension gave me some mixed feelings, and I missed one of the PSP ones (but the one I did play on the PSP holds the record of being the only PSP game I've ever completed).

Those of you that have actually played the game will notice that I've over-analyzed and/or misrepresented parts of the game, like how Kratos is tricked by Ares into killing his wife and son (an act with obviously torments him), in God of War III you rip off and cart around Helios's head and use it as a magical lantern, and Athena essentially deceives you into doing her dirty work for her, knowing full well what Kratos really wants, and that she isn't going to give it to him.

I wrote this article to highlight and mock social justice "warriors" (which isn't the first time). If you don't know what a social justice warrior--also known as a social justice weasel or whiner, armchair activist or slacktavist, professional victim, manufactured outrage brigadier, con artist, etc--is, whether you've never heard of it before, heard it only in passing, or are someone who mistakenly thinks that it's a good thing, this article does an excellent job of summing up what they are (and are not) about.

Unfortunately you can't reason with them: they delete your comments, block you, or have a bunch of other equally pathetic, miserable wretches try and shout you down with hypocritical nonsense. Fortunately aside from cowering in their echo-chambers and hugboxes, safe from criticism, there are numerous people that do an excellent job of pointing out the bullshit that to them qualifies as logic:


If I had to thank SJWs for anything (thankfully I don't), it would be that this rise of lazy, unimaginative, unskilled, untalented, sycophantic hacks has introduced me to plenty of the opposite, which yes, includes even women and minorities.

The problem is you aren't going to find them on sites and twitter feeds dedicated to/written by third-wave feminists, professional victims, and/or self-hating white knights, where lazy, the talentless men and women without drive or purpose whine and misrepresent non-issues that basically translate as them not being given unfair treatment, and/or having to overcome alleged "barriers" that equally affect men.

{ 15 comments... read them below or Comment }

  1. Where's my fucking plus one button?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I was so confused... nicely done!

    ReplyDelete
  3. you made one mistake that was a dead giveaway...

    to Feminists...

    it is OK to tear unborn fetuses from pregnant women and devour them. it's practically wo-mandatory.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Poking fun at over-the-top social activism is all well and good. Asserting that systemic barriers do not exist at all, on the other hand, is just factually inaccurate.

    People of color are disproportionately targeted by law enforcement, and punished more aggressively for the same crimes. The DOJ's Ferguson report is the most recent of many studies.

    Something like 30% of LGBT kids experience such severe bullying that they attempt suicide.

    Women are paid less for the same jobs than men. Recent big studies have looked specifically at business school graduates and nurses. In addition, Gallup reports that about one in twenty Americans openly admits that they would not vote for a qualified woman for president. 

    ReplyDelete
  5. @David B: I try. :-D

    @Chris: What if they are girl fetuses?

    @Charles McEachern: The pay gap is a myth. I'd ask for sources about everything else, but given that you believe in the pay gap myth I'd be pretty skeptical. That's one of the consequences of continuing to parrot bogus studies and statistics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The pay gap is a myth" is a myth. Bloomberg and the Wall Street Journal seem more credible than /r/MensRights.
      http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-11-14/women-make-less-than-men-even-when-they-are-equally-qualified-mbas
      http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2013/02/25/male-nurses-make-more-money/

      I suppose you think racism ended with MLK? Look up redlining. Look up the DOJ report I mentioned above, which discusses predatory, explicitly racist tactics used by police. There are also studies galore! Note that black college graduates experience higher unemployment than whites... maybe because blacks are less likely to be called back after a job application (controlling for education and experience)... even if the white person has a criminal record and the black person does not!
      http://www.cepr.net/documents/black-coll-grads-2014-05.pdf
      http://www.irp.wisc.edu/publications/focus/pdfs/foc232i.pdf

      Are you seriously disputing the fact that widespread discrimination against LGBT people still exists? You realize that you can be fired for being gay in 29 states, right? And that same-sex married couples were denied federal benefits until less than 2 years ago? One of this country's major political parties is openly antagonistic towards gays!

      Delete
    2. @Charles: Oh look, a SJW getting all riled up and defensive because someone isn't "listening and believing".

      I don't, never have, and probably never will go to the Men's Rights reddit. Honestly the only thing I use reddit for is the Dungeon World...whatever you call it. Topic? Thread? I dunno, not particularly versed on reddit.

      No, I've heard about the myth from a variety of sources, including Factual Feminist, which if you actually read the above article would realize that I specifically linked to that video.

      (Of course we know you DIDN'T read the whole thing: I know how angry it makes you self-hating beta male slacktavists when people don't blindly buy into your ideology.)

      So, who am I to believe? Yet another white man presuming to speak on the behalf of women, or an actual woman? Sorry, but I've dealt with FAR too many of your type that think they know what women (and minorities) want and need.

      I'd say I love how you you make a leap from me not believing what you're saying, to believing that racism vanished with Martin Luther King, but I've come to expect that sort of "tactic" from your kind.

      I mean, there's a HUGE middle ground there, but you're too busy trying to...what? Seriously, what are you trying to do, guilt me into accepting everything you say at face value?

      Did you just forget everything you said in your previous post? You said that "30% of LGBT kids experience such bullying that they attempt suicide", and because I said that I'm understandably skeptical of what you're saying, you somehow conclude that I think LGBT people aren't discriminated against.

      Again I'm glad you guys exist, because it's introduced me to a diverse range of people, women and minorities included, that don't agree or even like you (which pisses you guys off SOOO much). They don't need or want YOU speaking on THEIR behalf: they have their own voices, so if you don't mind (and I know you do) I'm going to listen to THEM.

      Delete
    3. Look at my facts, not at my face. I'm also not speaking on behalf of anyone. I'm also not claiming to know what anyone wants or needs. You presented a claim: that systematic barriers don't exist any more for historically-disenfranchised groups. I disputed that claim. When you asked for more sources, rudely, I provided several, also rudely.

      The 30% statistic comes from a study by the Suicide Prevention Research Center. On page 14, they compile values obtained by a handful of earlier studies. I have also attached several papers which correlate youth suicide attempts specifically to bullying.
      http://www.sprc.org/sites/sprc.org/files/library/SPRC_LGBT_Youth.pdf
      http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/5/896
      http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1994-33835-001

      Of all the types of discrimination that still exist, discrimination against LGBT people has got to be the most obvious. I earlier mentioned "one in twenty Americans openly admits that they would not vote for a qualified woman for president" -- that same poll shows that one in THREE Americans openly admits that they would not vote for a qualified gay or lesbian for president.
      http://www.gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx

      On the wage gap, the widely-circulated 77% figure is misleading. The studies I posted above, which are careful to control for variables like hours, field, and education, end up with numbers closer to 90%. That's still significant.

      Factual Feminist spends most of her time talking about the 77% statistic specifically. She argues that it's based on a naive calculation, which is true. However, she is then quick to dismiss more sophisticated studies (like the ones I posted above). She cites no evidence, saying only: "Wage gap activists will argue that even when you control for relevant variables, women still earn less. Well it always turns out, they omit one or two crucial variables."

      It's true that different analyses give different numbers, but it's consistently the case that the female number is smaller. There are exceptions, but they're convoluted: it looks like women make more than men if you only look at people under 30, who are unmarried and childless, and who live in cities.
      http://content.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2015274,00.html

      Your position on racial discrimination is unclear. You didn't acknowledge when I originally mentioned the DOJ report, and you haven't acknowledged the studies I posted above. Do you believe that people of color still experience discrimination?

      In a more big-picture sense, do you believe it's just a coincidence that (straight white) men are hugely overrepresented in influential and high-paid positions? That there are no systemic biases in play? The Senate is 80% male. Fortune 1000 CEOs are 95% male. Etc.

      I'm not asking you to pay reparations or give your job to an underprivileged person. I'm asking you to understand and acknowledge that the systemic barriers, which have existed for all of American history, are not yet gone.

      Delete
    4. In a more big-picture sense, do you believe it's just a coincidence that (straight white) men are hugely overrepresented in influential and high-paid positions?

      Can you show that it isn't?

      Delete
    5. I would also love to point out that the majority of garbage men are straight white men. Are you fighting for representation there as well? It would seem to me equality would be an across the board thing, not just a "well those positions look nice, THOSE are the ones we deserve."

      Delete
  6. I am looking at your "facts". The fact that your face is white was merely an expected coincidence.

    I never said "systemic barriers" don't exist. YOU said that, and then both rudely, stupidly, and predictably made several leaps from what I DID say (I don't believe what you are saying at face value) to another, more extreme one that I did NOT say (discrimination/racism doesn't exist AT ALL).

    I've heard too many flawed studies to simply believe them because a "reputable" site says so. Again, pay gap myth. Also many rape statistics. You aren't the first armchair slacktavist to cite them (or claim I said something that I didn't say). You are the first one to concede that part of what you said was exaggerated, so maybe there's hope?

    Christina Sommers says that the "gap" almost completely vanishes when you account for, well, everything. Both articles you posted made the 77-cent claim, something which you again admit is exaggerated. But, why should I believe that they make just 90%? Because it's a smaller gap?

    "Your position on racial discrimination is unclear. You didn't acknowledge when I originally mentioned the DOJ report, and you haven't acknowledged the studies I posted above. Do you believe that people of color still experience discrimination?"

    My position on racism, to be adamantly clear, is that I'm opposed to racism. Surprise, right? You mentioned the DOJ report, but why should I go looking and believing that? As we've seen the Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg have no problem parroting flawed studies and statistics. I'm anticipating a HUGE amount of research that will simply lead to an unclear conclusion.

    "In a more big-picture sense, do you believe it's just a coincidence that (straight white) men are hugely overrepresented in influential and high-paid positions? That there are no systemic biases in play? The Senate is 80% male. Fortune 1000 CEOs are 95% male. Etc."

    You're saying two different things, here. On one hand, you're asking me if it's a coincidence that straight white men are "hugely overrepresented in influential and high-paid positions" (whatever qualifies for you as highly overrepresented). You THEN say that the Senate is 80% male, and Fortune 1000 CEOs are 95% male. You don't mention sexual orientation or ethnicity.

    Men and women in general want and do different things. I've heard that being a CEO typically demands, among other things, taking lots of risks and being competitive. In this case I wouldn't be surprised that most are male.

    My article is about people like you that are trying to censor what you don't like. It's about con-artists that cherry pick games and misrepresent data to push an ideology. It's (mostly) about women (and also trans-peeps) that whine about how they want to get into game design, but don't want to actually DO anything: they just want the men that are already there to open the door and give them a job that they aren't qualified for.

    "I'm not asking you to pay reparations or give your job to an underprivileged person. I'm asking you to understand and acknowledge that the systemic barriers, which have existed for all of American history, are not yet gone."

    Great, because I wouldn't. Even if my grandparents owned slaves, I still wouldn't, because none of that shit's on me.

    I'm also not going to "understand and acknowledge systemic barriers", just because you want me to, especially considering you already cited incorrect data. I did some brief googling on SB, and amid numerous articles from Canadian sites (which included broken links), found that they can include a lack of transportation systems, drug/rehab centers, and jobs.

    That's kind of hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @Sinister: Yeah, it seems that SJWs and third-wave feminists are only championing for "prestigous" jobs, like tech and game design.

    I've seen several women design incredibly simple and stupid games, then label themselves as a game designer, despite the fact that they only created one shitty game AND don't do that to support themselves (I talk more about it here http://bit.ly/1z4exuo).

    They don't want the entire playing field leveled, they want special treatment so they can get the "nice" jobs without having to try so hard. Or at all.

    ReplyDelete
  8. In your concluding paragraph, you tar social activism as whining about "having to overcome alleged 'barriers' that equally affect men." That's what I'm calling you on.

    You say you looked at my facts. Then you admit that you did no such thing. You assumed a priori that every study that disagreed with you was flawed, then you didn't read them. For example, if you had read the WSJ article, you would realize that they mention the 77% value only for reference; they are contrasting their sophisticated analysis against the census' naive figure.

    Relatedly, you're acting like the 77% figure is false. It's not. It just doesn't tell the whole story, which is the whole reason that these more specific studies exist. If you have numbers to support a conflicting position, let's see them -- numbers, not "Christina Sommers says so."

    And Christina Sommers doesn't even say so! Even while trash-talking the idea of a wage gap, she can't bring herself to say that it's completely an artifact of the sampling method. She hedges her bets with "almost." I'd say 90% is "almost" 100%, but paying a woman 10% less than a man for the exact same work is sure-as-shit discrimination.

    You say that I cited incorrect data. Prove it. Really, prove ANYTHING. You don't trust my arguments when they're backed by major news sources, but you seem to expect me to take you at your word.

    You seem completely unwilling to put in any effort at all to find information that might challenge your beliefs. You point out that I didn't provide specific examples of underrepresentation of LGBT people or people of color. In ten seconds, you could have found that only 1% of Fortune 500 CEOs are black, and that only one (out of 500) is openly gay.

    "They don't want the entire playing field leveled, they want special treatment so they can get the 'nice' jobs without having to try so hard. Or at all."

    This is a pretty confusing statement. Are you acknowledging that the playing field isn't level right now? Or are you asserting that straight white men dominate the Fortune 500 because they just try harder than anyone else?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "In your concluding paragraph, you tar social activism as whining about "having to overcome alleged 'barriers' that equally affect men." That's what I'm calling you on."

    That specific part is in reference to a wannabe female "game designer" complaining about what she calls barriers for women wanting to get into game design. Stuff like money and time. In terms of game design, which is what I'm talking about here, yes, they equally affect men. I know it's inconvenient for the women I see over on G+ whining about their hardships, but there ya go.

    "You say you looked at my facts. Then you admit that you did no such thing. You assumed a priori that every study that disagreed with you was flawed, then you didn't read them. For example, if you had read the WSJ article, you would realize that they mention the 77% value only for reference; they are contrasting their sophisticated analysis against the census' naive figure."

    I didn't say that I didn't look at your "facts", I said that I've heard too many flawed studies to simply believe them.

    Learn. To. Fucking. READ.

    Also, If I didn't look at the articles, how would I have known about the 77 cents reference?

    I don't assume that every study that disagrees with me is flawed, I do assume you believe whatever "studies" support your conclusion. In this day and age, where words like misogyny and rape are watered down to essentially mean...whatever is most convenient for slacktavists, I’m not about to be so charitable.

    "Relatedly, you're acting like the 77% figure is false. It's not. It just doesn't tell the whole story, which is the whole reason that these more specific studies exist. If you have numbers to support a conflicting position, let's see them -- numbers, not "Christina Sommers says so.""

    You know what I'm talking about. You know that people parrot it as "proof" of gender discrimination in jobs, because it’s easier than the alternative: you aren’t the most qualified. You aren’t the most educated, talented, reliable, enthusiastic, and/or whatever else the person in charge is looking for.

    And so what if you take all the incomes of everyone, and come to the conclusion that men tend to make more money?

    Are you honestly arguing that women should make the same amount, no matter what jobs they choose (if they even choose to have a job at all), their experience and education, and decisions they make (like whether to further their education, take initiative, work overtime, flexibility in work hours, have children, etc)?

    That's fucking absurd. Life isn't fair. You don't always get what you want. You aren’t always going to be the best person for something. That's not a sign of discrimination. Creating women-only charities and school days, giving women reduced sentences for the same crime, and suggesting that you should just believe a woman who claims to be raped, is.

    I’d say it’s funny and ironic how you think an educated women telling me something should carry less weight than a news article written by a white man, but that’s part of the White Knight Code.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "And Christina Sommers doesn't even say so! Even while trash-talking the idea of a wage gap, she can't bring herself to say that it's completely an artifact of the sampling method. She hedges her bets with "almost." I'd say 90% is "almost" 100%, but paying a woman 10% less than a man for the exact same work is sure-as-shit discrimination. "

    I love, LOVE how you claim she is "trash talking" the wage gap. Is that another SJW buzzword, like how when people try to have an actual conversation you guys just brush it off as "sea-lioning"? Also, she says it "narrows to the point of vanishing". That sounds like more than 99%.

    "You say that I cited incorrect data. Prove it. Really, prove ANYTHING. You don't trust my arguments when they're backed by major news sources, but you seem to expect me to take you at your word. "

    Because major news sources are never wrong or misrepresent information, right? They'd never resort to clickbait headlines.

    I don't expect you to change your mind or trust me any more than I expect creationists to believe in the actual age of the world and evolution. The social justice/third-wave feminist ideology is so cult-like after all: just listen and believe!

    "You seem completely unwilling to put in any effort at all to find information that might challenge your beliefs. You point out that I didn't provide specific examples of underrepresentation of LGBT people or people of color. In ten seconds, you could have found that only 1% of Fortune 500 CEOs are black, and that only one (out of 500) is openly gay."

    From, what, trusted “news sources"? Maybe trusted studies that conclude, among other things, 1 in 4 women on a campus are raped (whatever rape means, anyway).

    Also, a minority of black and gays being CEOs isn't a sign of discrimination. But you're probably all about businesses having an “acceptable” ratio of skin colors and genders, because THAT'S what's important, right? Not education, skills, and experience, but skin color, sexual orientation, sexual identity, and/or the bits between your legs.

    "This is a pretty confusing statement. Are you acknowledging that the playing field isn't level right now? Or are you asserting that straight white men dominate the Fortune 500 because they just try harder than anyone else?"

    I'm saying that slacktavists, third-wave feminists, and the like are lazy fearmongers. That's why they throw around words like misogyny, harassment, and whatever-phobia (and think that you can’t be sexist or racist against white men). I'm asserting that there are more men as CEOs because that's the kind of thing a man would tend to want to do.

    Just because a woman wants to be a CEO, doesn't mean that she's entitled to it. That's not discrimination.

    Anywho, how many people actually try to be a CEO? What are their qualifications? What are they doing to improve their odds? What about their parents/relatives?

    ReplyDelete

Followers

Recent Comments

Popular Post

Blog Archive

- Copyright © Points of Light -Metrominimalist- Powered by Blogger - Designed by Johanes Djogan -