"10 Hours of Walking in NYC as a Woman" and "Taking Compliments"
I think this video is really worth a watch!
I know a common response has been "those guys are just giving her compliments and being friendly; how is that harassment?". But really, do you think these guys would be "friendly" in this way to every person they pass? In a busy city like New York, do people say "Good Morning!" to everyone they see? You'd run out of breath; this isn't a peaceful stroll through the park where you awkwardly avoid eye contact for a moment before politely nodding and saying "G'day" to some old lady as she passes (I get really anxious when this happens in the park for some reason, I'm too insecure and antisocial and old white women scare me for some reason because I think they are always silently judging me but that's beside the point and I'm probably being sexist saying that). No, I might be jumping to conclusions here, but I think they are saying it and giving her that attention because she's an attractive woman, and they are interested in her either sexually or romantically.
Now, the more sinister side starts to appear when she ignores these comments. If it seems clear that they are saying these things not to be friendly, is she wrong for ignoring it? She's not interested, and doesn't want the attention, and if she responds it might invite further unwanted attention. Also, it's a big city; people don't want to stop and chat. It's New York baby - we're all trying to make it in the big city! But when she ignores them, several seem offended, and the sentiment that she's a "stuck-up bitch" pops us rather quickly (just look at the YouTube comments!). We see people say stuff like, "You don't speak?", and "Someone's acknowledging you for being beautiful - you should say 'thank you' more", as if she is obliged to acknowledge their advances, and is being "stuck-up" for minding her own business and neutrally walking ahead.
Also, what matters isn't necessarily the words themselves, but the context and way it is said. Although the "only 7% of meaning is in the words themselves" isn't true, and I don't do English Language, a lot of meaning still comes across in the tone and body language. I can't really express this clearly in words, but there's a difference between saying 'Hey baby' like you're Fonzie and trying to get into a girls pants, and saying 'Hey baby' like there's a baby there and you're trying to get its attention. I mean, a friendly smile, a nod hello, maybe even a conversation, can be amazing, but when said in a certain way in a certain context, something like "hello, how are you?" can make one feel uncomfortable and even threatened.
Now imagine if you heard this all the time. This video just covers 10 hours; imagine hearing it every single day on your way to the train station or whatever. Firstly, it would be really annoying. Secondly, you might feel unsafe. This women encountered a few creeps on this one day. I'm not saying all the other guys were creeps; not at all, but a woman can't tell by one glance which guys are the creeps and which guys aren't, and she might be scared that the guy saying "Morning, beautiful" won't stop there. Also, while individual encounters seem harmless, it all builds into a bigger picture that has an effect on young women (reminds me how constantly hearing "that's so gay" builds into this bigger picture for gay kids, through repeated association of "gay" with negative attributes. Psychological conditioning and all stuff; I always get a little hurt when I hear it and forget what I was thinking about, even if I recognise that the person didn't mean to offend gay people, but I digress). It's reducing their "beauty" and "sexiness" to their physical appearance, and constantly reminding them that, in the eyes of the public, their physical appearance is defining how they are seen. There are women that like that, sure, but a lot of women don't, and don't want to be constantly defined just by their appearance.
I mean, I'm not going to lie, when I see a beautiful woman (or man, for that matter), I want to look at them; my eyes might naturally be drawn, but I recognise that she would feel weirded out if she saw some kid staring at her from across the street. I try to at least be subtle about it, like looking in the reflection of the train window (lol) and if I want to approach them, I'll look for signs that they are also interested (doesn't happen a lot, evidently; that and I'm really socially awkward, as alluded to earlier. Maybe one day I'll kill two birds with one stone and ask an old white woman out on a date). But yeah, let's respect women and try not to make them feel uncomfortable when they just want to walk through the street. I mean, we could all walk in the city wearing sunglasses and headphones, but do we really want that? People are becoming more shut-off in today's society, but cat-calling and this kind of complimenting doesn't help. It builds this culture of mistrust towards strangers, of our fellow man. Let's be friendly to each other, and say 'Hi!' because we mean well to our fellow human being and it's feels good to be alive, not because we want to get in their pants.
Also, "Lewis' law: 'Comments on any article [or video] about feminism justify feminism.'". Just look at the YouTube comments, or more to the point, don't look at them.
Uncharted 3
Uncharted 3, the latest grand adventure by Naughty Dog, is like a good steak. While it's sizzling, it sounds real good. When it's on your plate, it looks real good. And when you bite into it, HOT DAMN! it feels good. Unfortunately steaks aren't that great at telling stories, and those looking for a compelling story in the steak may be left a little disappointed, even though this steak sets a nice mood. If you're not primarily looking for a great story in the steak however, it is a magical experience.
The game begins with a far more subdued opening than Uncharted 2, with our rugged hero Nathan Drake not hanging off a train in the Himalayas, but having a fist-fight in an English pub. From the get-go, the close-combat system has been greatly improved and emphasised, providing fun and fluid brawls. Nate, along with his cigar-chomping mentor Sully, are in this mess because of an ancient-artifact deal gone wrong, and it isn't long they are captured by the scores of bald, brawny English thugs.
It is here that we are introduced to Katherine Marlowe; the primary antagonist and leader of a secret, shadowy organistaion, who steals Nate's priceless ring. As Drake follows this villainess, we learn that this organisation is looking for Iram of the Pillars, a lost city somewhere in the Rub' al Khali desert... and so begins an exciting adventure as Drake and his rag-tag team of heroes race this organisation of assholes to this "Atlantis of the Sands".
Was that crude? I'm sorry, but that's the only reason we are expected to dislike these guys. They do nothing really despicable, we know next to nothing about them, and their motivations are never really made clear. I feel these villains, or rivals as I saw them, should have had more depth, for we should have a good reason to kill hundreds of them.
In fact, character development is pretty weak with the protagonists as well, with the characters never feeling vulnerable or truly relatable.This is especially disappointing since the devs tried to make us see the characters in a second light through cutscenes exploring themes of consequence and morals, only to have absolutely no pay off. Why open the door in the first place?
The one character who is fostered and therefore more engaging, a cynical, claustrophobic British fellow named Charlie Cutter, is abruptly whisked away about a third of the way in, not showing up again (although he will be back in future installments for sure; he's a fan favourite). Also the main relationship between Nate and Elana feels a bit shallow, for while they do have nice chemistry, they are only onscreen together for less than an eighth of the game.
You're probably thinking, "Geez Austin; why are you bitching about the story so much, you bitch?!" and to that my reply is well.. there really is nothing else to criticise in this game. After almost 20 years of making Crash Bandicoot, Jak & Daxter and Uncharted, Naughty Dog Inc. have truly mastered action-adventure gameplay. There is a perfect mix of combat, platforming, stealth and puzzles in this game, with fantastic level design and pacing. In true Uncharted fashion, the set-pieces are spectacular, with my personal favourites being a chase through Yemen and a certain burning chateau.
The visuals are jaw-dropping; quite possibly the best I have ever seen on a console. In more simple terms; SWEET BABY JESUS THE GRAPHICS!! The animation, lighting, detail, textures and particle effects are all stunning, whether it be in a dilapidated London underground or a devastated, sinking cruise ship. The desert sequence, shown in all the trailers, will go down in the history books as one of the most visually mesmerizing video game moments of all time.
A common complaint about the game that I've noticed is the shooting not being tight enough. Although I understand the argument, I personally had no problems with it at all, since I find it more natural and layered this way. Just be aware that this isn't Gears of War style shooting.
I think that just about covers it. With this game, Naughty Dog have proven once again that they are the virtuosos of adventure games, giving us a thrilling and captivating adventure that engages the player like few other games can. It's a shame they didn't put more effort into the story, for Naughty Dog have truly captured the cinematic feel, but nonetheless this is a game that should not be missed by any PS3 owner. This treasure hunt is a gem itself.
My recommendation: BUY IT!
PS: I'm aware of how ridiculous that steak metaphor was
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)