Video Game Violence, Censorship, and Sexism

Arguing against banning video game violence but arguing for a ban on animated child pornography is sexism.

The reasons that we censor pornography have always been motivated at least partially by sexism. There is no other way to explain it. How is it that consensual sex is so horrific that some consider breastfeeding in public as obscene, but partaking in a simulation of the quartering of a woman dressed in highly sexualized clothing is not? How could it possibly be that the act of creating life is obscene, while the act of ending life is not?

The obvious answer is that our narratives have convinced us that women hold the power in consensual sex, but clearly it is men who hold the power over violence.

J. Scalia points out in his recent opinion on age-limits for the purchase of violent video games that literature is full of violence from Homer on down to today's copy of the New York Times. Isn't it also full of sex? Wasn't Lott fucked by his daughters (Genesis 19:30-36), and didn't the men of Greece rape the Trojan Women at the end of the Illiad? And yet, interactive depictions of these acts are sold in XXX shops to people 18 and over.

J. Scalia also argues that pointing out how much video game violence is racist and antisemetic (as J. Alito does) makes a case that it is art and therefore free speech. But an inordinate amount of child pornography is sexist. Does that mean that child pornography is art?

In an earlier case that banned animated child pornography, despite the fact that they cited no studies indicating that animated child pornography harms children, they were willing to believe that it would feed pedophile's urges and make them more likely to victimize children. However, they are unwilling to look at the ample studies that prove categorically that violent video games increase violent behavior, decrease helpful behavior, and have led to countless assaults.

I'm not saying that I think we should regulate video games, but if we do not, we must not regulate animated child pornography either. But of course that will never happen because sex is so insurmountably abhorrent that even consensual loving sex is often an exception to the first amendment. On the other hand, violence is necessary to keeping women in their place.

Violence is necessary because we need to train little boys, and I mean tiny little boys who have no reason to hate anything, to grow up into killing machines. We need to convince men that killing one another is a feat that not only is acceptable, but is rewarded on Memorial Day, Veterans Day, the Fourth of July and by saying, "Thank you for your service" when we encounter a professional killer on the street. I do not mean to trivialize the service of our men and women in uniform. They are professional killers, but if we are to live in an imperfect world we have to be able to protect our nation. However, we must keep their service in context.

These violent video games are aimed at boys because we need to train them to believe that it is exciting to kill and be killed. In video games, it is easy to say I "shot him" and he is "dead," and even I am "dead" or I am out of "lives." It is all so trivial, fun, rewarding, and exciting that the military itself uses these video games for training and recruiting purposes, and sponsors the creation of these video games. We are training boys to live lives of violence. Violence requires victims. Many of these boys are not able to find legitimate victims so they turn to one another, or their wives, or their children, or people in the street, or themselves.

And the reward is even better than it seems at first. The reward for all this violence is the continuation of the gender hierarchy that puts men on top, keeps women on their backs (and I do mean it that way), and aligns the world all right (and I do mean it that way). If the little girls flinch when the little boys cheer, it just proves to us all that little girls and the women they grow into are not cut out to do what needs to be done to run our country, our world, or our society. Girls need to be protected, so they should play Dora the Explorer, or at worst Super Mario Bros., but leave the violence to the little boys who are "just naturally drawn" to beating prostitutes to death before decapitating another victim.

The worst problem with this holding is that it completely misidentifies and aids the true threat to our freedom of speech. We are no longer living in a world where governments (Egypt, China, and Iran) are able to control what we say. We now live in a world where the most active censors are corporations, the same corporations that are making these video games. Sometimes corporate censorship is the kind that we know traditionally, as is the case with Apple and Amazon.com when they ban objects from their platforms because they claim they are obscene (who gets to say what's obscene and how come it's always gay smut?).

More often, corporate censorship is the marketing of certain (usually sexist) products, while making other products mostly unavailable. They say that they market what the public wants, but if that were the case nobody would ever pay for marketing (I'll let you puzzle that one out). In fact, they spend millions attempting to get us to want certain products. Corporations use advanced psychological techniques that are as effective as brain washing, and they target children whose brains do not fully mature until as late as 25-years-old.

Which is what these corporations do with violent video games in California. They rate the game M for Mature, and recommend it for users over 16, but then market to 12-year-olds who buy the games by walking to their local Game Stop and then hiding it until late at night during a sleepover (where your child visits and plays it even though he doesn't own those kind of video games because he is a good kid). The question in this case was not whether the video game manufacturers should be able to sell to kids, or even market their mature products to kids who everyone admits are too young for the game. The question in this case is should those kids have to ask their parents for permission to buy those video games as they have to do already for pornography. The question is whether our puritanical society thinks consensual sex is worse than murder. The answer is clear. They are both terrible evils... [Excuse this interruption, I'm being handed a message from our sponsors. "Violence is awesome!!! Rip off some fucking heads!!! Rip them off!!! Yeah!!! Rip that hot bitch in half!!! Yeah!!! This rocks!!!"]

Baby Shower

I have been dis-invited from a baby shower. At first I was furious, but now it just makes me sad.

I am sad because I am a primary care-giver for a baby. My experience seems relevant to the soon-to-be mom, and they disallowed me from coming simply because I am not the right gender.

I am sad because the ritual of a baby shower is a significant opportunity to sit in a circle of sages to discuss child raising, and though many mothers will be in the room to share that wisdom, it will be kept as a secret from the father's of their own children.

I am sad because children that are hurt when their fathers are not invited to share and hear these lessons.

I am sad because instead of using this opportunity to share traditional women's knowledge with men and therefore recognize its inherent value, the women at this shower are ritualizing that knowledge so that men cannot understand it, and therefore cannot acknowledge it.

I am sad because fathers already have disadvantages when their child is born because they were not invited to partake in child rearing in their own childhood, and those fathers will feel all the more lonely, abandoned, and frightened when their child is born. They will feel either frightened or they will simply leave the childcare to their partners.

I am sad because these same women will expect their partner to help out in the first weeks of the child's birth, but because their partner will have no idea how to help, a great percentage of these women will be disappointed with their partners and unable to initiate sexual contact with their clueless partner for up to three years (see the previous entry at the end of October).

I am sad because I love being a part of my child's life, and these women want me to stay in my "place" and it makes them uncomfortable that I would rather talk about my son than hit golf balls and chug beer.

Although it is inappropriate for a straight male to admit it, when I was dis-invited, it made me very sad.

Oh well.

Daddy Kisses

According to Stroller Derby blog http://blogs.babble.com/strollerderby/2010/09/22/should-dads-kiss-their-daughters-on-the-lips/ "An anonymous woman, who signed her letter “Want My Husband’s Lips for Myself,” finds her husband’s habit of kissing his 5-year-old daughter on the mouth to be “a sexual gesture and very inappropriate.”"

The writer's opinion derives from the belief that man are unable to control their sexual desires. We used to say that women were bringing it on themselves when they were raped because everybody knows that men can't control themselves. Second wave feminism, meanwhile, has rightly convinced that blaming the woman for their sexual assaults is wrong, but we haven't internalized the necessary corrolary that men are fully and completely in control of their sexual urges.

Masculinity makes men out to be animals, incapable of true relationships with women because they become sex machines the second they get a peck on the lips. I say, kiss your daughters, kiss your sons, kiss your friends. Liberate your lips! Let's have a national kiss your loved ones day and continue our liberation from masculinity.

Protectiveness

Men often use their urge to protect those around them as a tool for controlling those persons. We tell our loved ones that they cannot do dangerous things and deny our loved ones the ability to make their own mistakes and get hurt. We have to realize that our children have to be able to fail and get hurt or they will never become adults. However, there are times when all parents need to stand up and be a straight up papa or mama bear. Through questionable methods, men are given the tools at a young age to be forcefully protective and keep our children from harm. By harnessing this talent effectively, and channeling to healthy protectiveness, men can use it to make our children feel safe enough that they are willing to try, fail, get hurt, and then try again.

Red Tent or Speak Easy?

Over the past several months, I have joined my wife on perhaps the most magnificent and meaningful activity of human life. Week after week, I have watched her grow my child. During that time, I have attended 9 appointments to her midwives, and witnessed her give birth. I have witnessed and felt more than I knew I could or was welcome to witness and feel. Most of the time, I was the only dad in the waiting room. I attended and helped to plan a baby shower where only one man showed up (thank you Damian). Throughout the entire process, women and men alike were astounded when it was made evident that I had done my research and that I had opinions on how Luca would start his life. Like the Tide commercial that ran during these last Olympics ("To their mom's, they're always kids"), the entire process was aimed at moms, and the word dad never even came up.

However, I was welcomed by the midwives and doulas, and the women in my life who wanted to talk about the baby. If I felt uncomfortable, it was only because there was a bouncer to the door of my masculinity asking, "Are guys really supposed to be here? Oh yeah? What's the password?" At my wife's first appointment, the midwife proceeded with the gynocological exam without asking me to leave the room, and casually offered to show me the cervix. It was clear at that moment that the flap to the door of the "Red Tent" was wide open, and it was only my self-oppression, my inner-masculinity-bouncer, that kept me from going in. But I went in. What was the pass word? A simple, "Thank you, yes."

Manifesto Part III: Fraternal Groups

Men in groups are remarkably trustworthy and loyal. They often act against their self-interests to aid a friend. The power of the bonds between men is a great and compelling attribute. However, these relationships often become abusive. Sometimes, fraternal groups bond through masculinization that becomes more and more extreme as members of the group feel more and more disempowered by their lives. The bonds they form are filled with boasts and bravado. Some men boast about their athletic abilities, their cars, their grade, their salaries or their property. Eventually, however, the boasts ring hollow because these limited measurements of success do not in fact prove maleness, and the groups are faced with the choice of becoming vulnerable or continuing their boasts into impossibility, desperation, and panic. Those fraternal groups that do not allow themselves to become vulnerable and admit their weaknesses express their panic with one another in ever more cowardly and abusive ways that often lead to violence, crime or abusive name calling (the word “pussy” is used a lot). Men need to relate with one another, and they should, but vulnerability is not masculine, so how can they do so?
Because conversations about feelings and priorities are often considered feminine, men often relate indirectly through some form of entertainment. These media are too often ways of reinforcing masculinity. Men talk about sports, action films, (often violent) video games, women’s bodies, and hunting among other things. In talking about these things men are reified in their masculinity at the same time that they teach masculinity to others listening. As men become more secure in their ability to present masculinity, and their bonds with one another become stronger, they will explore more feminine forms of entertainment, or even talk about emotions, feelings, and family life, but even then they regularly revert to masculine media as ice breakers. In this way our bonds to one another become bonds to the tyrannical fear mongering masculinity of our childhood.
Even with the safety mechanism of masculine entertainment casting its shadow over men’s friendships, occasionally they grow to love other men in meaningful ways. However, they are afraid to express their love for fear of being feminized by being associated with homosexuals. They cannot even tell another man that they love him without adding the word “man” to the end of the phrase in order to reassert the masculine nature of their love. Even more frightening is the possibility of touching these men in any kind of caring or loving manner. Because team sports replicate the masculinizing influence of physical violence, they are allowed to embrace each other in a scrum, hug one another in a game of tackle football, and grope each other in a half nelson. However, without the protection of simulated violence, even a hug can be uncomfortable and kissing has been made repulsive. Of course, repulsion is a kind of fear, in this case of physical contact that, if enjoyed, will be a force for feminization that will leave them under threat of violence.
Friendship brings with it great satisfaction and happiness. These relationships also bring stability, as most men know that there a some other men on whom we can trust with our lives. But these relationships are hijacked when they are allowed to become tied to masculinization.