In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

REVIEW: Half-Life 2 (2004)

When’s the last time in a videogame you met a black male character that’s elderly, educated, disabled… and with loving family, no less? That’s just one of the many ways Half-Life 2, a game still popular to this day, has set the bar for the industry in the years since its release. If you’re a gamer, you’ll like today’s episode – but if you’re not, check out why the games industry isn’t a totally lost cause

FEMINIST GAME REVIEWS
“HALF-LIFE 2” (2004)

OVERVIEW ► released in Q4 2004, “Half-Life 2” depicts a future where faceless aliens have subjugated Earth, installing a dictator to monitor humanity. the game is a sequel to the original “Half-Life”, released to critical acclaim in 1997 for bringing realistic characters and settings to gaming. upon release, “Half-Life 2” was universally acclaimed for its advances in graphics, AI and physics, as well as its complex, lifelike characters. the hero, Dr. Freeman, is the opposite of a typical beefcake hero. the game depicts him as an MIT physicist, forced to fight to inspire hope. this unusually ordinary hero is backed by a varied supporting cast, collaborating despite their differences to fight back against oppression. ultimately, “Half-Life 2” focuses on ordinary people, in contrast to today’s generic military shooters about manly men and their manly guns.

VISIBILITY ► whilst the first “Half-Life” was renowned for its realism, it was oddly devoid of women characters, though it did have one token black dude. surprisingly, the sequel raises the bar in this regard. Freeman’s closest ally is Alyx, an educated multiracial woman with a talent for tech. Dr. Vance is her dad, the one black character from the first game, now depicted as a disabled Harvard grad leading the Resistance’s research. also aiding the Resistance is Dr. Mossman, a woman scientist who manages to be an important character (despite not having a boyfriend). the human citizens of City 17 are an equally varied lot. they hail from a range of backgrounds, as should be expected of a modern populace. though the game features both minority and female characters, it portrays them as essential contributors, not helpless victims to be rescued.

AGENCY ► Dr. Freeman may be the central hero, but he is no lone-wolf saviour. the supporting cast also have roles in shaping the plot and saving Earth. Dr. Mossman is one of the game’s more visible female characters. complex in her motives, she plays both sides in a gamble for Earth’s survival. Freeman’s ally Alyx also defies stereotypes of girls as helpless damsels. her first appearance involves saving the hero from police in pursuit. Alyx’s rapport with her dad is noteworthy as well. the game depicts how their relationship motivates her to keep fighting for the Resistance. Alyx’s dad is a gaming rarity, being an elderly, educated and disabled man of colour. that he spends half the game in captivity is disappointing. nonetheless, most minor characters have an active role in saving their world, even the ragtag rebels who rise up in revolt during the game.

PROGRESS ► though praised for its immersive characters and storytelling, the game failed to immediately persuade rival studios to adopt a similar approach. the later games of the era favoured macho, cinematic approaches where muscly, clichéd supermen save the world, with women oddly absent. in recent years though, more studios have begun recognising the importance of having characters who look like the gamers buying games. the developers of “Half-Life 2” continue to (slowly) develop games under this philosophy, as evidenced by characters in titles like “Left 4 Dead”. even after more than a decade, “Half-Life 2” remains relevant, as fans persist in creating new modifications to update and improve the game. the pivotal question now is whether future videogames will try to surpass the high bar set by “Half-Life 2” and its forward-looking developers.

The first instalment of this review series began with 2014’s Wolfenstein: The New Order. With this second instalment, we backtracked a decade earlier to 2004, to the birth of technology that now powers today’s most popular games. Our plan had been to then review other titles over those intervening 10 years, to demonstrate how much – or little – has changed in the industry since then.

What we’ve discovered, though, is that playing a new game for each new episode is frankly inefficient. To quote a developer diary we recently wrote on the topic…

…covering a new game in each video is extraordinarily resource-intensive. Putting 8 to 12 hours into a game for the sake of one video is asking a lot, and whilst the economics may work for YouTubers like Angry Joe with established audiences, it’s not a sustainable model for beginning YouTubers.

So we’ll likely do a limited four episodes for this season, and then switch up the format for the next season to focus on feminist playthrough commentary – one chapter from the game per video.

If we do this, we’ll adapt the vlog design we used in our recent Q&A videos, repurposing it for commentary. Yes, the content of those videos was bad, but the purpose of the videos was to stress test our vlog design and workflow, under real-world conditions – and both held up well, so we can apply them to a better purpose next semester.

Anyway, if you’ve no patience for dev diary rambling, basically we’re deciding between critiquing feminism in either Mass Effect 3 or Deus Ex: Human Revolution for next semester’s videos. If you have an opinion on which game we should do, sound off in the comments.

We’ll post the next instalment of this series in a few weeks. (Hint: Strogg.) Meanwhile, for those of you with friends who only care for carnage in gaming, here’s something to whet their appetites…

Thoughts on nail salons

Thinking about the 1909 Shirtwaist Strike got me thinking about immigrant women workers today. You may have read these NYT articles about the exploitation and abuse of undocumented immigrant women working in nail salons in New York City. What these exposes have to say is appalling, but not unexpected, to my mind–how did we think all those salons were surviving charging twenty-five bucks for a manicure and pedicure? Pixie dust? Of course they’re getting by through the time-honored method of screwing over women with few options.

I have not seen anything written by the women who work in these salons themselves. Well, that’s not too surprising. As the articles note, most of them are in the country illegally–they don’t want to draw attention to themselves, lose their jobs, and have INS Homeland Security called on them. So I don’t know how the workers themselves would like the rest of us to approach this situation.

I do know that this is a women’s issue, and therefore a feminist issue. The workers are women. The people who go to these salons? Mostly women. And not particularly rich women. So what is a feminist approach to the situation?

I’ve seen many people, sometimes men with an air of superiority to those frivolous women who insist on pretty nails say, well, don’t get manicures or pedicures then, do your own nails. Leaving aside the feasibility of this for any given woman (when I was in my final trimester, after a month of not being able to cut my own toenails, I asked my mother to do it for me because I couldn’t stand it any longer), this is an example what I think of as “purity politics.” It doesn’t actually effect change. It just keeps your own hands clean. If that’s what you want, that’s fine–you are not tainted by being part of the immediate exploitation of immigrant women workers in nail salons. But it’s not sustainable in the long run (try eating food in the US without being part of a chain of exploitation and abuse), which is why purity politics always turns into one-upmanship, and more importantly, it doesn’t actually help the people being exploited. Your personal decision not to get your nails done changes nothing, and even an organized boycott would probably only kill business to the point that these women would lose their jobs. Well, that doesn’t help them. They’d still be an inherently exploitable population due to their undocumented status, and they’d just end up being exploited in another industry.

I return to the Shirtwaist Strike. What about unionization? It’s not as though nail salons are inherently more exploitative environments than, say, coal mines.

And here we see how anti-immigrant, xenophobic policies work hand-in-hand with capitalist exploitation, by creating an underclass of people who have no legal recourse to exploitation. And the established unions have gotten very comfortable working within a legal framework, to the point that if an established union helps these workers organize, they will end up jobless and/or deported again, because established unions require legally registered workers.

So I started thinking about legality. The employers have dived into illegality, of course, by employing undocumented immigrants. Why must the solution be a legal one? What if the workers organized themselves with or without the covert help of the established unions and struck for contracts? How could such a contract be enforced extra-legally? Well…gangs and organized crime seem to do it. Employers who broke a contract could find their windows smashed, for instance. Employers who called Homeland Security on striking employees could find their places of business destroyed (I don’t mean fire, I mean more smashing). Of course, this brings us back to the association between organized labor and organized crime, and I realize there’s a reason for that association. When you are fighting capitalist exploitation backed by the force of the state, as you are in this situation, you need lawyers, guns, and money at the ready. You need to be backed up by force yourself. And who has lawyers, guns, and money to bring to the table? Organized crime does.

Anyway, this is all so much a flight of fancy. I’m not there. I’m not doing the work. I don’t know how the culture and experiences and background of the workers affects what they do or the solutions available to them. I just know that unless, say, amnesty and residency is offered to nail salon workers involved in organizing a union, which is unlikely, those workers are caught in a terrible bind and I don’t see a good way out. At this point, all I can really suggest is that if you are someone who goes to nail salons regularly, tip really really well, tip in cash, tip directly to the person doing your nails.