In almost every conversation about FGM I've ever seen, someone brings up circumcision, and draws a comparison pointing out that women don't seem bothered by it, and that everyone is silent on the issue. This is one of those issues that drives me a little crazy; here's an opportunity for men to campaign for an issue that they care about, and where an argument can almost certainly be made that people routinely inflict an unnecesary and potentially harmful (well, they'd probably argue *always harmful) procedure on children too young to consent, and it usually gets brought up as a "gotcha" instead. It seems like a waste.
And it's not like there isn't a point to be made. We're talking about permanently removing part of a boy's body for pure reasons that have no actual basis in medical health. The reasons given for circumcision are primarily religious, cosmetic, or based on myths and tradition. That certainly makes the conversation difficult, since people who support it are sometimes going to do so for reasons that can't easily be logiced away. There's real room for men to promote a change that could benefit future children, if the conversation is taken seriously and made on its own ground, but when it gets brought up as a "men suffer too!" argument, it breeds ill will and distracts from the also valid conversation about FGM.
And it ends up feeling very disingenuous, to me. Certainly there are men who resent being circumcised, but the evidence of lasting harm is hardly conclusive. There are men on both sides of the conversation. And equating a normal circumcision with FGM is a false comparison, anyway; what is done to men in a standard circumcision is to FGM what an ear piercing is to a lobotomy (well... perhaps not quite, but the hyperbole is slight).
And, of course, the motivations for each bear questionable resemblance. The purpose of circumcising men isn't to remove sexual pleasure or ensure "sexual purity" for future spouses; even if you don't accept the validity of the arguments--and, clearly, there are many who don't--it just isn't the case that they're the same. The arguments against each are certainly similar, but why each happens is not.
Ultimately, there's nothing wrong, I think, with advocating an end to both. I just wish it didn't feel like every time I saw male circumcision brought up was antagonisticly on feminist blogs.
(uploaded on the T)
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Great Graphic Novels for Girls
As the "about me" blurb suggests, I'm a fan of comic books. When I was a kid, we spent many summers driving down to Georgia to visit my family in Valdosta. As it turns out, Valdosta is hot in late July/August. Really hot. Really really hot. Going outside to play during the day just wasn't that much fun, but, lucky for me, one of my uncles had been an avid comic-book reader when he was younger, and had amassed a pretty large collection of X-Men books. I spent most of that summer lying on the cool floor of my grandmother's house drinking sweet tea and escaping into the world of "Marvel's Mighty Mutants." I was introduced to Wolverine and Colossus and Storm and Nightcrawler (my favorite) et al. I watched as they saved a senator's life, even though he was rabidly anti-mutant. I saw Jean Grey die and be reborn as the Phoenix. I saw old members leave and new members show up. I saw them hanging out dealing with a world that didn't understand them, and I saw them fight with each other and with the people who wanted to harm them and with the people they were trying to save. It was my first exposure to the world of comic books, and while it's hard to say what impact it had on my life, it fostered a life-long love of the form. I don't think it's any coincidence that the X-Men continue to be my favorite super heroes, even though I haven't read a current X-Men book in a long time. Those stories (written by Chris Claremont) were my first foray into the world of comics, and I think that it was a fortunate introduction.
My first exposure to comic books was with a book that, while filled with typical super-heroics (heroes with strange powers! In colorful costumes! Fighting evil! Saving people! Action and adventure!), recognized we live in a difficult world where being seen as "different" can make life hard. Claremont took the idea of mutants and turned it into a metaphor, and made the book, at least in part, about discrimination. The X-Men aren't just born as heroes, they're born into a world that "fears and hates" them. They're pesecuted not for anything they've done, but for who they are. It's not a perfect metaphor, by any means, and the writing was, at times, really problematic, but for young me, it was a good introduction to a topic that I didn't have a lot of exposure to. They were heroes, but the world around them treated them like villains. Even more than Spider-Man, who was often the target of public ire, the X-Men were outcasts. A lot of those stories are as much about the fight for equality as they are typical super-heroics. The villains of some of the stories--I'm looking at you, Magneto--can't even rightly be called evil (despite the unfortunately named "Brotherhood of Evil Mutants"). Magneto is (correctly, it turns out) concerned about the oppression of his fellow mutants, and worried that non-mutants will try to exterminate mutant-kind. Since that's exactly what happens, it's hard to fault Magneto, even if some of his actions go too far. The world of the X-Men isn't black and white, it's a morally grey world.
But I digress.
Another area that the X-Men were interesting was in their treatment of women. Again, not perfect by any means, but there were a number of women on the team, and they were given lead roles, instead of playing back-up. In fact, it wasn't long before Storm was leading the X-Men. It wasn't infrequent for one of the X-Women to end up in situations where it they were the ones taking the spotlight and saving the asses of their fellow teammates.
Which isn't to say that Claremont deserves cookies for writing women who were capable of being heroes in their own right. That Claremont's X-Men books are so unusual for their time is a larger criticism of the industry than it is kudos to Claremont. It shouldn't be unusual to find books where women share the spotlight evenly with their male colleagues, or to find books where women's experiences are centered. Instead, the industry tends to write books by, about, and for men. I can't say what the current state in most of the X-Men books are, anymore--I know that Cyclops is leading one team while Wolverine leads another, and apparently they don't like each other right now? Again. But you don't have to look hard to see that women in comics aren't always written with a lot of respect to character. Look at some of the controversy around DC's reboots--Starfire, Catwoman, Amanda Waller--to see some of it. Marvel doesn't fair any better, either.
All of which is to say that it can be hard to find books that take the time to portray women with respect and let them be the center of the story without turning them into eye-candy.
Luckily, I had the pleasure of meeting one of the bloggers at Great Graphic Novels For Girls. So, if you're looking for something good to read, you could do a lot worse than starting here. They've helpfully broken the books out into various genres, so you can jump right to whatever your interests are. If you're interested in graphic novels and comics, this is a great resource.
My first exposure to comic books was with a book that, while filled with typical super-heroics (heroes with strange powers! In colorful costumes! Fighting evil! Saving people! Action and adventure!), recognized we live in a difficult world where being seen as "different" can make life hard. Claremont took the idea of mutants and turned it into a metaphor, and made the book, at least in part, about discrimination. The X-Men aren't just born as heroes, they're born into a world that "fears and hates" them. They're pesecuted not for anything they've done, but for who they are. It's not a perfect metaphor, by any means, and the writing was, at times, really problematic, but for young me, it was a good introduction to a topic that I didn't have a lot of exposure to. They were heroes, but the world around them treated them like villains. Even more than Spider-Man, who was often the target of public ire, the X-Men were outcasts. A lot of those stories are as much about the fight for equality as they are typical super-heroics. The villains of some of the stories--I'm looking at you, Magneto--can't even rightly be called evil (despite the unfortunately named "Brotherhood of Evil Mutants"). Magneto is (correctly, it turns out) concerned about the oppression of his fellow mutants, and worried that non-mutants will try to exterminate mutant-kind. Since that's exactly what happens, it's hard to fault Magneto, even if some of his actions go too far. The world of the X-Men isn't black and white, it's a morally grey world.
But I digress.
Another area that the X-Men were interesting was in their treatment of women. Again, not perfect by any means, but there were a number of women on the team, and they were given lead roles, instead of playing back-up. In fact, it wasn't long before Storm was leading the X-Men. It wasn't infrequent for one of the X-Women to end up in situations where it they were the ones taking the spotlight and saving the asses of their fellow teammates.
Which isn't to say that Claremont deserves cookies for writing women who were capable of being heroes in their own right. That Claremont's X-Men books are so unusual for their time is a larger criticism of the industry than it is kudos to Claremont. It shouldn't be unusual to find books where women share the spotlight evenly with their male colleagues, or to find books where women's experiences are centered. Instead, the industry tends to write books by, about, and for men. I can't say what the current state in most of the X-Men books are, anymore--I know that Cyclops is leading one team while Wolverine leads another, and apparently they don't like each other right now? Again. But you don't have to look hard to see that women in comics aren't always written with a lot of respect to character. Look at some of the controversy around DC's reboots--Starfire, Catwoman, Amanda Waller--to see some of it. Marvel doesn't fair any better, either.
All of which is to say that it can be hard to find books that take the time to portray women with respect and let them be the center of the story without turning them into eye-candy.
Luckily, I had the pleasure of meeting one of the bloggers at Great Graphic Novels For Girls. So, if you're looking for something good to read, you could do a lot worse than starting here. They've helpfully broken the books out into various genres, so you can jump right to whatever your interests are. If you're interested in graphic novels and comics, this is a great resource.
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
A quiet return...
According to this thing, it's apparently been about two and a half years since I put anything up. That's a long time. Lots of things have changed in my life in that time, including my relationship with the blogosphere (and the internet at large), but I've been dipping my toes back in a little bit here and there, and anyone who knows me knows that I can't shut up for long. I'm guessing my posting won't be anything close to daily, but I think I can manage more than once every two to three years. I like to set realistic goals, ha.
It's worth noting (to me, at least) that I finished an MLS during the gap, so a lot of my thinking has sort of shifted towards the communities I serve and about the ways that libraries can/should serve those communities. Working in a library is the perfect combination of my interests and passions, and I feel very lucky for that.
So, in the meantime:
what did I miss? What blogs ought I be reading? What's the best damn thing you've read so far this year?
It's worth noting (to me, at least) that I finished an MLS during the gap, so a lot of my thinking has sort of shifted towards the communities I serve and about the ways that libraries can/should serve those communities. Working in a library is the perfect combination of my interests and passions, and I feel very lucky for that.
So, in the meantime:
what did I miss? What blogs ought I be reading? What's the best damn thing you've read so far this year?
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Briefly...
I find the commercials for "Toddlers and Tiaras" so completely disturbing... I'm not sure I have words. I just cannot get my mind around the mentality that says "I have a toddler... you know what a brilliant idea is? To hyper-sexualize my child, dress her up in leather and chains, and have her act seductive for an audience!"
I'm reading Lolita for the first time right now. How "Lolita" has come to be understood as a seductive young girl, I do not understand, either. It's pretty clear to me, at over halfway through the novel, that Humbert Humbert is a horrible monster and that Lolita is very clearly the victim of a sick, sick man who lies, manipulates, abuses, and molests her at every turn. It seems to me that it'd be like reading, say, "Johnny Got His Gun" and coming away thinking "Yeah! War is awesome! Everyone should join the military and blow stuff up!" Missing the point for $1,000, Alex?
I'm reading Lolita for the first time right now. How "Lolita" has come to be understood as a seductive young girl, I do not understand, either. It's pretty clear to me, at over halfway through the novel, that Humbert Humbert is a horrible monster and that Lolita is very clearly the victim of a sick, sick man who lies, manipulates, abuses, and molests her at every turn. It seems to me that it'd be like reading, say, "Johnny Got His Gun" and coming away thinking "Yeah! War is awesome! Everyone should join the military and blow stuff up!" Missing the point for $1,000, Alex?
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Read on another site:
British poster says: "When your house is on fire the fire department doesn't ask if you have insurance, do they? [If they do that system is a fucking disgrace]. And if they don't, why is a house considered something the Government is duty bound to safeguard but not the health of its country's citizens?"
Why, indeed?
Why, indeed?
Friday, June 12, 2009
Shooting zombies in the face with a side order of racism and sexism, please.
A couple of months ago a friend of mine picked me up a copy of Left 4 Dead for my birthday. Given my love of video games, and the fact that I loathe the undead, it seemed like a perfect match. As far as the game itself goes, I think it's pretty solid. It's a lot of fun most of the time, despite a few bugs and the controversy around the announcement of Left 4 Dead 2.
For those unfamiliar with the game:
Left 4 Dead is presented as being sort of a cinematic experience. You play a campaign in 5 acts. The AI controlling enemy behavior and item drops is called the Director. The game takes cues from film in the way that it alerts players to changing events--when a mob of zombies is about to come running onto the scene you get specific "zombie mob" cue music. When there are boss zombies around, they have special theme music alerting you to their presence. That kind of thing.
Every campaign follows the same four survivors trying to go from Point A to point B in an effort to escape to a safe zone free of zombie infection. They do so by traveling from safe-house to safe-house. The game does a very good job of creating atmosphere and mood--the safe-houses are filled with the scrawled graffiti of past survivors, and you sometimes come across the bodies of former survivors who died trying to escape, or houses/buildings where survivors attempted to make a stand but fled.
The game is generally pretty light on story, being mostly focused on presenting an engaging multiplayer experience, so we don't get a whole lot of backstory about the survivors, except through the things they say to each other, or the dialogue they have throughout the game. Zoey, Francis, Bill, and Louis.
I have a few groups of people that I usually end up playing with, and most of the time, if I limit myself to those people, it's fine. But if I start playing with random groups, I get treated to constant bickering about Zoey and Louis. See, Zoey is a woman, and Louis is a black man.
Louis gets pounced by a zombie? Oh, it's because he's black.
Louis wanders off alone? Yeah, he's black.
Louis makes a comment about finding weapons in another room? Of course he did... he's black.
A male player plays Zoey? "I always knew you were really a girl."
Zoey gets attacked by the smoker? "Even the zombies want to rape Zoey!" Yeah. For real.
It's at the point where I refuse to play on random servers because I just cannot stomach the level of hate and bigotry on display. The other day I was treated to ten minutes of listening to a back and forth about how gay various players were, before I finally quit. I've tried calling people on it, but, it doesn't seem to help.
Mostly this is just a rant, because I'm fed up with it. It's too bad, because if you get rid of all the complete assholes, L4D is a pretty fun co-op game. When you pull of a really well coordinated attack, or fight through a particularly tough episode as the survivors, it's a ton of fun. Unfortunately, you always risk the complete assholes.
*sigh*
For those unfamiliar with the game:
Left 4 Dead is presented as being sort of a cinematic experience. You play a campaign in 5 acts. The AI controlling enemy behavior and item drops is called the Director. The game takes cues from film in the way that it alerts players to changing events--when a mob of zombies is about to come running onto the scene you get specific "zombie mob" cue music. When there are boss zombies around, they have special theme music alerting you to their presence. That kind of thing.
Every campaign follows the same four survivors trying to go from Point A to point B in an effort to escape to a safe zone free of zombie infection. They do so by traveling from safe-house to safe-house. The game does a very good job of creating atmosphere and mood--the safe-houses are filled with the scrawled graffiti of past survivors, and you sometimes come across the bodies of former survivors who died trying to escape, or houses/buildings where survivors attempted to make a stand but fled.
The game is generally pretty light on story, being mostly focused on presenting an engaging multiplayer experience, so we don't get a whole lot of backstory about the survivors, except through the things they say to each other, or the dialogue they have throughout the game. Zoey, Francis, Bill, and Louis.
I have a few groups of people that I usually end up playing with, and most of the time, if I limit myself to those people, it's fine. But if I start playing with random groups, I get treated to constant bickering about Zoey and Louis. See, Zoey is a woman, and Louis is a black man.
Louis gets pounced by a zombie? Oh, it's because he's black.
Louis wanders off alone? Yeah, he's black.
Louis makes a comment about finding weapons in another room? Of course he did... he's black.
A male player plays Zoey? "I always knew you were really a girl."
Zoey gets attacked by the smoker? "Even the zombies want to rape Zoey!" Yeah. For real.
It's at the point where I refuse to play on random servers because I just cannot stomach the level of hate and bigotry on display. The other day I was treated to ten minutes of listening to a back and forth about how gay various players were, before I finally quit. I've tried calling people on it, but, it doesn't seem to help.
Mostly this is just a rant, because I'm fed up with it. It's too bad, because if you get rid of all the complete assholes, L4D is a pretty fun co-op game. When you pull of a really well coordinated attack, or fight through a particularly tough episode as the survivors, it's a ton of fun. Unfortunately, you always risk the complete assholes.
*sigh*
Monday, June 08, 2009
Regarding Shadow of the Colossus...
Tycho, at Penny Arcade, had this to say:
And that's exactly why people like me point to that game as an example of how games can become art.
The dread starts at the very beginning, simmering in your gut, and it never gets better ever - hour upon hour. You know immediately that you are engaged in something like evil, if not evil itself, but our appetites as players demand that we seek objectives and conquer them - and the game scourges us for this dereliction of conscience. The technology at work often obscured the game itself, but the emotional wavelength has resounded years after the fact. At this late hour, I can recall no camera foibles or performance valleys. All I can recall now is the black bargain, and concentric waves of anguish.
And that's exactly why people like me point to that game as an example of how games can become art.
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Deadliest Warrior
Sometimes I find myself watching shows and I think to myself "Oh, dear lord, this show is so clearly aimed at dudes, why am I enjoying this?" And yet, Deadliest Warrior has totally sucked me in, because it's exactly the sort of stupid geeky debate that guys like me had when we were in our teens. Except that now they've got "experts" and a computer program (named Slytherin!) to try to determine the "real" winner. It's ridiculous and stupid, and yet I can't stop watching it if I come across it on the tv. I didn't even know I wanted to know who would win in a fight between the Green Barrets and the Spetsnaz, but once the show started, I had to find out.
It's like Mythbusters meets History Channel meets teen boy "who would win a fight" debates.
I want to see them pit Amazons against someone, though. I know that the Amazons are one of those groups where there's less fact than fiction to the myth, but, hell, they put ninjas vs. Spartans up, and ninjas are completely fictitious in the way they showed them, so why not pit the Amazons against someone?
I also find it interesting to note who I end up liking and disliking in this show. During the Green Barret vs. Spetsnaz episode, I ended up finding the Spetsnaz guy sort of humorous and likable, even though, you know, he's a trained killer. The Green Barret guys just came across as overly macho assholes, and I found myself rooting against them. Which is weird to me, because it's not like either group lacked testosterone. If there was any more chest beating or posturing, they'd have had to pull their dicks out to compare. Which I'm pretty sure would have made it no longer Spike TV material.
This fits into a larger conversation that I've been having and thinking about for a while, but I'm still sort of working out and fleshing out, about violence and the media. Here's a show that airs at 3 in the afternoon on Saturdays, where they spend the whole time talking about and demonstrating how deadly various weapons are. They test the weapons on pig corpses, impale test dummies, and then, at the end, they have a simulation of a battle, and one guy/team dies at the end. It's a pretty violent show (as if the title alone wasn't indication enough). On the one hand, as I've already stated, I find it fascinating. On the other, it does seem a little fucked up that it's presented as regular old Saturday afternoon entertainment. Like "Hey, let's watch dudes kill each other, and find out which of these two guys is the more deadly fighter!" And, honestly, I found a couple of the matchups a little... I don't know...
Taliban vs. IRA? Maybe not super cool. I don't think that many people have an actual investment in Spartan vs. Ninja or Pirate vs. Knight, but there are people alive today who've lost friends and relatives to the activities of the IRA and the Taliban. It just seems insensitive, at the very least.
Anyway, welcome to my new guilty pleasure: a show on Spike TV of all things.
And, since I finally watched Funny Games, I hope to eventually get a post up about the violence thing, in more depth. Eventually.
It's like Mythbusters meets History Channel meets teen boy "who would win a fight" debates.
I want to see them pit Amazons against someone, though. I know that the Amazons are one of those groups where there's less fact than fiction to the myth, but, hell, they put ninjas vs. Spartans up, and ninjas are completely fictitious in the way they showed them, so why not pit the Amazons against someone?
I also find it interesting to note who I end up liking and disliking in this show. During the Green Barret vs. Spetsnaz episode, I ended up finding the Spetsnaz guy sort of humorous and likable, even though, you know, he's a trained killer. The Green Barret guys just came across as overly macho assholes, and I found myself rooting against them. Which is weird to me, because it's not like either group lacked testosterone. If there was any more chest beating or posturing, they'd have had to pull their dicks out to compare. Which I'm pretty sure would have made it no longer Spike TV material.
This fits into a larger conversation that I've been having and thinking about for a while, but I'm still sort of working out and fleshing out, about violence and the media. Here's a show that airs at 3 in the afternoon on Saturdays, where they spend the whole time talking about and demonstrating how deadly various weapons are. They test the weapons on pig corpses, impale test dummies, and then, at the end, they have a simulation of a battle, and one guy/team dies at the end. It's a pretty violent show (as if the title alone wasn't indication enough). On the one hand, as I've already stated, I find it fascinating. On the other, it does seem a little fucked up that it's presented as regular old Saturday afternoon entertainment. Like "Hey, let's watch dudes kill each other, and find out which of these two guys is the more deadly fighter!" And, honestly, I found a couple of the matchups a little... I don't know...
Taliban vs. IRA? Maybe not super cool. I don't think that many people have an actual investment in Spartan vs. Ninja or Pirate vs. Knight, but there are people alive today who've lost friends and relatives to the activities of the IRA and the Taliban. It just seems insensitive, at the very least.
Anyway, welcome to my new guilty pleasure: a show on Spike TV of all things.
And, since I finally watched Funny Games, I hope to eventually get a post up about the violence thing, in more depth. Eventually.
Monday, April 27, 2009
I don't even know what to make of this story...
So... this is a weird and disturbing story The short version: A guy in Meshchovsk, Russia, tried to rob a hair salon at gunpoint. As he was collecting the money, the owner knocked him down, tied him up with a cord, and then locked him in a closet. Instead of calling the police, she told him to drop his pants or she'd turn him over to the police. After that, she spent three days feeding him viagra and raping him, before letting him go and telling him to get out of her sight. He ended up going to the police, and now they're both probably going to jail.
I'm sort of sitting her slack-jawed at the story. Like... what the hell?
On the one hand, I feel like it's good that he went to the police and that his claim was taken seriously... but, on the other, it's not so good that he was trying to rob someone at gunpoint.
I'm also glad that the story calls it rape, even though the headline makes it sound more like he was going to rob her but they decided to get into some S&M play instead.
Honestly, I'm still trying to decide if the story is real or not. It's so... bizarre.
I looked for verification, but, sadly, I mostly found the sorts of comments I'd expect from a story like this. Lots of variations of, "Oh, what a lucky robber!/That's hot/I wish my hair dresser would handcuff me and 'rape' me", and lots of "A woman can't rape a man/I can't believe he went to the police/he must be gay to complain about it".
And since this happened in Russia, there's the obligatory anti-Russian sentiment as well.
Anyway, I don't really know what to say about it, and I should be working on homework anyway, but I thought that it was such a weird story, that I'd go ahead and share it.
I'm sort of sitting her slack-jawed at the story. Like... what the hell?
On the one hand, I feel like it's good that he went to the police and that his claim was taken seriously... but, on the other, it's not so good that he was trying to rob someone at gunpoint.
I'm also glad that the story calls it rape, even though the headline makes it sound more like he was going to rob her but they decided to get into some S&M play instead.
Honestly, I'm still trying to decide if the story is real or not. It's so... bizarre.
I looked for verification, but, sadly, I mostly found the sorts of comments I'd expect from a story like this. Lots of variations of, "Oh, what a lucky robber!/That's hot/I wish my hair dresser would handcuff me and 'rape' me", and lots of "A woman can't rape a man/I can't believe he went to the police/he must be gay to complain about it".
And since this happened in Russia, there's the obligatory anti-Russian sentiment as well.
Anyway, I don't really know what to say about it, and I should be working on homework anyway, but I thought that it was such a weird story, that I'd go ahead and share it.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
Regional differences?
So, I picked up Wii Fit last week, and only got around to using it this week. I'm very surprised by it. I don't expect that it will get me in the best shape ever or anything like that, but I've heard from several people that it helped them stay on a routine and that it was good as a warm-up or as a supplement to working out, or for days when their regular workouts weren't going to cut it.
So, moment of truth: I'm in *terrible* shape. I haven't worked out regularly since... uh... how long ago did I have to take gym class, again? Seventh grade? I went through a phase in undergrad where I was working out semi-regularly, but mostly running and stair climbing. And the reality is that I'm getting older, my diet has been pretty consistantly crap for the last few years (for a variety of reasons), and I've gone from working a retail job where I was doing a lot of lifting boxes and climbing stairs and generally being active for 7 hours a day 5 days a week, to holding desk jobs and being a grad student who plays more video games than he should.
So, to say that I'm not in the best shape of my life is, in reality, laughable. I'm clearly in the worst shape I've ever been in. And I know that my weight is not indicative of my health, and I try to remind myself that it doesn't matter how big my waistline is, as long as I'm healthy. Of course, that would carry more weight (no pun intended, actually) if I was actually healthy. Which I think it's safe to say that I'm not.
Anyway, the point is that I picked up Wii Fit because I'm trying to make a commitment to getting healthier. I'm also giving up soda and chips (two of my MAJOR weaknesses, thank you very much. I've gone from multiple cans/bottles of soda a day to only one bottle of soda in the last week. Unless you count seltzer, which I don't, since it has no sugar or chemicals in it, and doesn't actually taste very good).
Anyway.
The first time you turn on Wii Fit, it goes through this whole process of figuring out how healthy you are and setting up goals and all that fun stuff. I selected my Mii character (the little character you make on the Wii that represents you). I put in my age and my height, and then I stepped on the magic board to, I assume, get weighed. Then it spit out my BMI.
Now, I fully recognize the problems with BMI, but as noted above, I already know I'm not healthy, so when it told me that I was seriously overweight, almost at obese, I was not actually surprised. What I was surprised by was when it took my little Mii guy and blew him up like a balloon to show me how fat I am!
He looked very unhappy at the process, by the way.
And then, when I started doing exercises, if I didn't do them very well, it would sort of give me this passive aggressive or outright mean remarks. Not like "Come on you lazy fuck, hold the pose!" But, on one of the balance exercises, I was having trouble keeping my center of gravity where it wanted me to. So, after the exercise, while it's showing me my results, it says something like "Wow, you had trouble with that one. Do you often find yourself tripping over your own feet?"
Ouch.
As it happens, I don't.
Anyway, I started thinking about it, and I realized that there was another game that exhibited this kind of blatantly hostile attitude towards players when you wouldn't expect it... Animal Crossing, back on the Gamecube. You'd move into this cute little town, filled with cute anthropomorphic creatures living in cute little houses. You dig up shells, you buy cute furniture for your house, and you're supposed write letters to the other townscreatures or do errands for them. The thing is, you go up to them to say "hi" and they greet you with things like "Oh my goodness! I was scared. I thought you were a monster, but then I realized you're just wearing an ugly outfit!" They're just plain mean to you, the whole time. They tell you you're funny looking, they tell you how much better other people are at writing letters, and they insult your intelligence and your taste in art/furniture/clothes/etc.
It's weird.
It's got me wondering if there's some weird translation thing happening, where they increase the a-hole quotient when they translate the game for American audiences. Or maybe I'm just interpretting the interactions differently than other people?
I don't know, but it's very curious to me.
In Animal Crossing it made me write them really nasty, mean letters. Which was funny, until the other people who were playing the same town with me started to complain because the animals would brag about what a great letter they got from me, and it would be a letter telling them that I was going to burn down their house.
So, moment of truth: I'm in *terrible* shape. I haven't worked out regularly since... uh... how long ago did I have to take gym class, again? Seventh grade? I went through a phase in undergrad where I was working out semi-regularly, but mostly running and stair climbing. And the reality is that I'm getting older, my diet has been pretty consistantly crap for the last few years (for a variety of reasons), and I've gone from working a retail job where I was doing a lot of lifting boxes and climbing stairs and generally being active for 7 hours a day 5 days a week, to holding desk jobs and being a grad student who plays more video games than he should.
So, to say that I'm not in the best shape of my life is, in reality, laughable. I'm clearly in the worst shape I've ever been in. And I know that my weight is not indicative of my health, and I try to remind myself that it doesn't matter how big my waistline is, as long as I'm healthy. Of course, that would carry more weight (no pun intended, actually) if I was actually healthy. Which I think it's safe to say that I'm not.
Anyway, the point is that I picked up Wii Fit because I'm trying to make a commitment to getting healthier. I'm also giving up soda and chips (two of my MAJOR weaknesses, thank you very much. I've gone from multiple cans/bottles of soda a day to only one bottle of soda in the last week. Unless you count seltzer, which I don't, since it has no sugar or chemicals in it, and doesn't actually taste very good).
Anyway.
The first time you turn on Wii Fit, it goes through this whole process of figuring out how healthy you are and setting up goals and all that fun stuff. I selected my Mii character (the little character you make on the Wii that represents you). I put in my age and my height, and then I stepped on the magic board to, I assume, get weighed. Then it spit out my BMI.
Now, I fully recognize the problems with BMI, but as noted above, I already know I'm not healthy, so when it told me that I was seriously overweight, almost at obese, I was not actually surprised. What I was surprised by was when it took my little Mii guy and blew him up like a balloon to show me how fat I am!
He looked very unhappy at the process, by the way.
And then, when I started doing exercises, if I didn't do them very well, it would sort of give me this passive aggressive or outright mean remarks. Not like "Come on you lazy fuck, hold the pose!" But, on one of the balance exercises, I was having trouble keeping my center of gravity where it wanted me to. So, after the exercise, while it's showing me my results, it says something like "Wow, you had trouble with that one. Do you often find yourself tripping over your own feet?"
Ouch.
As it happens, I don't.
Anyway, I started thinking about it, and I realized that there was another game that exhibited this kind of blatantly hostile attitude towards players when you wouldn't expect it... Animal Crossing, back on the Gamecube. You'd move into this cute little town, filled with cute anthropomorphic creatures living in cute little houses. You dig up shells, you buy cute furniture for your house, and you're supposed write letters to the other townscreatures or do errands for them. The thing is, you go up to them to say "hi" and they greet you with things like "Oh my goodness! I was scared. I thought you were a monster, but then I realized you're just wearing an ugly outfit!" They're just plain mean to you, the whole time. They tell you you're funny looking, they tell you how much better other people are at writing letters, and they insult your intelligence and your taste in art/furniture/clothes/etc.
It's weird.
It's got me wondering if there's some weird translation thing happening, where they increase the a-hole quotient when they translate the game for American audiences. Or maybe I'm just interpretting the interactions differently than other people?
I don't know, but it's very curious to me.
In Animal Crossing it made me write them really nasty, mean letters. Which was funny, until the other people who were playing the same town with me started to complain because the animals would brag about what a great letter they got from me, and it would be a letter telling them that I was going to burn down their house.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
