Today’s post was going to be a review of Braid. But Duke Nukem Forever was released yesterday, and, well… I have comments. So, next week: Braid. Now: Angry Feminist Rant.
Trigger Warning: descriptions of rape and violence ahead. Please do not read if these things may be harmful to you.
First, the backstory – Duke Nukem Forever was released after a decade of anticipation and shifting release dates, with the game being dropped and picked up by development houses and publishers along the way. And now that it is out? Almost every review of Duke Nukem Forever has been negative. It has an abysmal metacritic score (although higher than it deserves, it seems to me). Many of the reviews have pointed out, in addition to poor graphics and boring gameplay, the blatant misogyny that fills the game in place of interesting content. Even Destructoid, which doesn’t have the best track record when it comes to sexism, lambasted the game for its immaturity and offensiveness.
The game doesn’t just support rape culture incidentally by propagating misogynistic tropes, though; it absolutely revels in it. According to the Destructoid review:
…at times, the game’s attempts to be funny come off as downright horrific. One level in particular takes place in an alien nest where Earth’s women are being inseminated by giant penises. The women writhe and moan in a fairly humiliating fashion, and they regularly sob with no small amount of implied misery. In essence, the women look like they’re getting raped. In fact, they are. That’s the big joke of the level. The aliens are raping the women to create babies… By the time Duke Nukem finally makes a “You’re fucked,” joke, which he makes in front of two girls who are about to die in the process of getting sexually assaulted, Duke does not come across as cool, witty or likable in the least. He comes across as a vile, callous, thoroughly detestable psychopath.
I was speechless after reading this. This is simply heinous. It completely falls flat as humor. Even for people who are regularly amused by harmful, offensive humor, I suspect this just isn’t funny. It’s sad and disgusting that the writers of this game felt the need to use violent sexual assault as a setup for an excruciatingly bad joke.
In light of the bad reviews, The Redner Group, the PR agency responsible for sending out review copies got angry and lashed out on twitter, saying:
too many went too far with their reviews… we are reviewing who gets games next time and who doesn’t based on today’s venom
So, if someone writes a massively harmful misogynist game that includes the premise ‘rape is funny’, and you have the audacity to point that out, you deserve to be punished by losing access to review any game from that publisher. I mean… look. While Feminists often talk about the silencing tactics that people use to keep rape culture intact, we don’t usually get such a blatant example. You’re blatantly saying “if you speak out about this, we will blacklist you”. It is a direct threat to damage the career of anyone who calls you out for your misogyny. If nothing else, Redner Group, thanks for such an illustrative example.
The Redner Group isn’t the only group that has issues with the negative reviews. We have some fine apologetics going on over here on Kotaku. One user in particular, with the outstanding handle of 0LunarEclipse0, had this to say:
Just because you can’t handle shock humor does not make it not funny. Everything can be funny. I’ve laughed at some of the most racist and disgusting jokes. Maybe that makes me a horrible person… Just because something pushes you to far doesn’t mean it pushes everyone to far… Nothing should ever be off limits. If we sacrifice freedom we sacrafice [sic] life.
The very fact that this offends you is more truth that it should be defended. Because you want it silenced. Censored. Well freedom means free. Regardless of how much something offends you, we can say and do what we want. Because your feelings don’t matter.
I don’t support rape and this joke goes a little to far even for me. But I beleive [sic] in freedom. So nothing ever should be off limits.
Okay, 0 (can I call you 0?). There’s a lot wrong with this – it’s basically a giant mess of privilege denial – so let’s take it a piece at a time. Frankly, I don’t care whether you’re offended. Offense is not the point. When I say that Duke Nukem Forever should not exist, I don’t say that because I think it is offensive. I say it because it will cause material harm. It reinforces – undeniably and strongly – the cultural narrative that rape is acceptable. Because when something is made into a joke, it is normalized. It is established as a set part of our culture. This will inevitably make it seem more reasonable, or justifiable, because it is normal. That is what rape culture does – it makes rape seem normal, inevitable, and by extension, acceptable.
So let’s lay out what we’re really talking about here. Duke Nukem Forever normalizes rape. It contributes to and propagates rape culture. To defend this game is to defend the act of rape. So no, I don’t care who is offended by Duke Nukem Forever. I care about who it is going to hurt.
On to the next premise: “freedom means free”. First, I don’t know what Randian faux-Utopia you live in, but in the reality I’m accustomed to, society puts certain limits on freedom. For instance, you are not free to kill another person. But i digress – let’s talk about what’s really on your mind. You’ve erected a strawman argument here that suggests the game’s detractors are trying to say the game should be pulled from the shelves, or banned, or something similar. I don’t know if reviews have been suggesting that – I can’t find any that have. I, at least, am not going to suggest that.
Certainly, the case could be made that this game should not be allowed to see release. My discussion of its harmful nature above edges in that direction. But I would rather err on the side of letting something harmful be created than that of censoring something worthwhile. So, I’m going to say this: Certainly, 2K games is free to develop and publish a game with this content. But I stand by my assertion in this post’s title, as well: the game should not exist. The world is not made a better place, in any way, by its existence. In fact, as I have suggested above, I hold that the world has been actively made a worse place by this game existing. It should not exist in the sense that decent human beings should know better than to create something this full of hate. But none of that is to suggest that the game shouldn’t be allowed to be released, or should be banned or censored, which is what the strawman argument says (although I would suggest that, if we’re going to have a rating system at all, the ESRB’s rating of M is dismissive of the seriousness of rape; this game should absolutely be AO). Rather, I’m suggesting that it is a negative mark for our entire society that we produce people capable of producing this game.
Moreover, you are applying your freedom conspicuously in only one direction. If the developers should have the freedom to make this game, why shouldn’t reviewers have the freedom to express their opinions about the game? It seems more a little hypocritical to complain about people exercising the freedom you’re so insistent on. So which is it? Do we ‘believe in freedom’, or not? Or does that freedom only apply when it lets you laugh at women being raped to death, and not when people suggest that maybe that’s a little bit fucked up?
One last thing I’d like to talk about is this claim:
I don’t support rape
By defending this game under the guise of ‘humor’, you do support rape. You may claim to have taken some abstract stand against rape, but you are contradicting that claim with your words. The same goes for anyone who would argue that this game has any redeeming value. The game contains content that is tantamount to hate speech against women. You are free to purchase and play Duke Nukem Forever – as you say, freedom is an important thing! However, if you do choose to support this game, you are supporting rape culture. So just, you know, keep that in mind.
Mark Saldana said
Hey,
Very informative writeup on the deeper issues at stake when we promote a game like this. Thanks for the link :)
SugaRazor said
This falls under the “just because you can, doesn’t mean you should” banner.
The game is bad and what’s most offensive to me is that in the year 2011, someone thought it was a good idea to present Duke Nukem without a hint of irony. That’s scary. It’s like if someone watches Mad Men and thinks “ah, the good ol’ days.”
There could have been something of merit here. Presenting this macho misogynist as a clueless buffoon perhaps, but they played it straight, which killed any chance of any actual humor.
Aliens turning women into broodmares is nothing new for sci-fi, and I don’t think everyone who would consume a story like that is supporting rape, but the way it’s presented here? It would be embarrassing to even be in the same zip code while that scene played.
It’s a shame because as stupid as Duke Nukem is/was, it is an important franchise for the medium and I hate to see something with 13 years of development behind it turn out like this. I think there was definitely a way they could’ve brought it into modern gaming, made it funny and still be edgy. Instead, they gave us humor a notch below Morning Zoo radio DJs that just makes the industry and its consumers look bad.
Nick said
This is excellent. I’m gonna say I don’t agree with the claim regarding erring on the side of letting harm be created than risk work of value be censored, but I’m (here, at least) going to defend that view mostly because it does nothing to diminish how much I dig this post. If only more internet “ranting” was as breathtakingly awesome as this!
anna said
You bring up a point worthy of much more detailed discussion – I’m afraid this space would get a bit cramped if we tried to carry out that discussion here, though. I oversimplified my view on the subject in the post because I wanted to stay focused on the broader topic, and it was easy enough to concede the point and still make a strong argument – it didn’t really weaken my case.
To be honest, I’m ambivalent – I consider fairly broad freedom of expression to be absolutely critical to the healthy functioning of society. On the other hand, the ability to live your life without encountering microaggression and/or things that trigger you (for people who are prone to such trauma) is important as well. I think it reduces to a discussion of conflicting needs between society and individual. The conclusion that the US Judicial system takes to the problem – their mentality appears to be that freedom of speech should be suspended when the speech puts people in danger of material harm (the classic ‘shouting fire’ example, hate speech, etc) – is tricky, because there is a lot of room for debate, even within the Social Justice community, when it comes to what constitutes material harm.
As a related analogy, consider obscenity laws. ‘Obscene speech’ is not protected, but the definition of obscenity has never been satisfactory and, I would argue, never will. You can’t create a meaningful definition of obscenity (check out this post (TW: illustrated depictions of consensual sexual intercourse) for more on that subject).
So, my basic problem with censorship is that to implement censorship, some group of people must be chosen to sit in judgement, to decide which expression gets to be protected and which expression gets censored. And that position is going to be prone to the same problems such groups always have, which are many (to enumerate a few: corruption, corporations exerting disproportionate influence, vocal minorities exerting disproportionate influence, and general moral value mismatches between communities). In fact, such groups already exist (ratings boards, courts) and already suffer from these problems.
I would rather try to solve the problem culturally instead of administratively. Spread the message that hateful content is simply unacceptable, and keep spreading that message as hard as we can until it starts to stick. I believe we’re making progress on that front, even if it is glacial at times.
JS said
I stopped reading at “Angry Feminist Rant”.
Clay said
look at this special little attention***
[Edited by Admin: I don't mind comments, positive or negative, directed towards myself or other commenters, but I won't tolerate slurs and hate language]
Ellen said
JS, then you’re a douchebag.
Why yes, we do live in a culture where rape is more acceptable than consensual sex - Metagalactic Llamas Battle at the Edge of Time said
[...] Anna at A Random String of Bits covers does a good job covering the nature of the content of the game, and at one point she quotes a particularly enlightening Destructroid review: …at times, the game’s attempts to be funny come off as downright horrific. One level in particular takes place in an alien nest where Earth’s women are being inseminated by giant penises. The women writhe and moan in a fairly humiliating fashion, and they regularly sob with no small amount of implied misery. In essence, the women look like they’re getting raped. In fact, they are. That’s the big joke of the level. The aliens are raping the women to create babies… By the time Duke Nukem finally makes a “You’re fucked,” joke, which he makes in front of two girls who are about to die in the process of getting sexually assaulted, Duke does not come across as cool, witty or likable in the least. He comes across as a vile, callous, thoroughly detestable psychopath. [...]
JS said
Ellen: …and you are a feminist, penis-hating Nazi. Your point? XD
Roger C. said
Hey JS, looks like you’re butthurt. Go lock yourself in your basement, keep on playing your mind-numbing Duke Nukem crap, and never come back up. Do us a favour.
Even guys like me don’t like seeing women treated like this. You’re as bad as Duke!
JS said
I came to ignore your cool story, bro and chew bubblegum…and I’m all out of gum. B)
Phil Sandifer said
You’re ignoring a blog post by leaving repeated comments on it?
Dude, you’re really, really doing it wrong.
Phil Sandifer said
Also, you’ve now posted 7 more words in comments than you claim to have read from the actual entry.
Really, really, really doing it wrong.
JS said
It keeps notifying me via email…so decided to humor myself.
SugaRazor said
Only took two comments before your entire argument devolved into comparing feminists to Nazis. Shocking.
Phil Sandifer said
There is one point here that I don’t quite disagree with, but do want to interrogate. You make the case that the game normalizes rape. But it seems to me that there’s an odd line here. I can imagine a basically identical game to the one described that uses absurdist/existentialist techniques and the basic aesthetics of situationalism to, instead of normalizing rape culture, create a sense of profound estrangement that makes one painfully aware of the horrific objectification going on. (A technique similar to what’s used in Super Columbine Massacre RPG!) I’m thinking here in part of shock humor like Sarah Silverman’s – Silverman being, to my mind, one of the strangest and most complex cases from a social justice perspective. But also things like Watchmen – a comic that clearly does not promote rape culture and is using rape to repeatedly underline the horrific ugliness of the narrative, arguing that rape is the unspoken natural endpoint of the superhero genre that it’s deconstructing, but in no way calling this a good thing. Of course, a catastrophic number of readers failed to see the critique and proceeded to turn out overtly rape culture superhero titles, but I’m loathe to blame Moore for that.
Where I’m finding myself hesitant here is that at some point the degree of over the top embracing of rape culture seems to me to stop being normalizing and start being estranging. But I’m not sure how to draw that line with useful precision. Perhaps it’s a line of intent? If DNF gave the slightest impression of being made by intelligent, insightful people as opposed to by lazy tools who rushed a game out to capitalize on the title’s infamy, the same techniques would seem significantly different?
anna said
I’m hesitant to use intent as the metric, for the reasons described here. Intent can have a purpose in discussions of misogyny (and other topics targeted by Social Justice), but really only in the sense that intent can help you gauge a person or group’s likelihood to take criticism to heart.
Rather than criticism, I would suggest that an end product which achieves the goal you describe (and I agree that it is possible, although such a work should probably still be rated Adults Only, as long as we must have a ratings system – I have thoughts on what we might want to have instead, but I’ve already digressed enough) would not be identical. To borrow from your examples, Watchmen would be different if Moore were celebrating or making light of rape. It wouldn’t come across the same way.
If an author intended for a work to be one thing, but it is widely read as another, then either the audience largely read it wrong (see Watchmen), or the author did a bad job of conveying their message. Moore’s problem is that he misjudged his audience (in his case, by giving them too much credit).
But even if the author just did a poor job of conveying meaning, that doesn’t absolve them of responsibility. If the work is responsible for the propagation of harmful memes, then it’s still harmful, regardless of the author’s intent.
In the case of a work that can be validly read the way the author intends, but is widely misread due to the audience failing to interpret nuance, well… that’s a trickier subject, and one in which there is much room for debate, I think. It brings up the question of whether the author should bear responsibility for the reactions of the target audience (and thus be expected to anticipate those reactions), and that broaches the broader topic of society vs. individual, and freedom vs. social responsibility, which I also brought up in my reply to Nick, earlier in this comment thread.
Of course, if the author’s response is “I didn’t mean to offend you, how was I to know you’d be so sensitive? Lighten up! Rape is funny!”, well then, that’s just bald privilege denial, and there’s probably no hope in even opening a discourse.
Phil Sandifer said
Fair enough. I suppose my question is more how one finds the line between shock humor and legitimate situationalist tactics. It’s more a question of how one goes about parsing triggering material. Of course, the answer may just be very simple – the heart of the situationalist tactic is to go on for too long, past any possible pleasure. Though even that becomes problematic given the structure of a lot of contemporary pornography. Clearly there isn’t a limit to grunting, brutal slapping noises that people are willing to endure for pleasure.
So yes, it’s a bit of a tangent on my part – a question about how this sort of mass market, socially acceptable rape porn under the guise of “shock humor” impacts the legitimate uses of shock and estrangement as political tactics.
I certainly agree that DNF getting an M rating instead of an AO one after Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was given an AO for content that isn’t actually accessible out of the box essentially forms the end of all possible legitimacy of the ESRB.
Andrew said
I wonder what the point is in linking alien parasitic infection to criminal rape. This didn’t occur to me when I played through it. Jim Sterling of Destructoid is famed for his inflammatory, sensationalist views.
I worry more about the people who leap to this disgusting conclusion than about people who enjoy the game for what it is – brain-dead, male fun.
anna said
It doesn’t seem like much of a leap to me. I mean, do you really find it hard to see the comparison between rape and one life-form forcibly inserting into another an appendage designed to impregnate? Because that’s a fair description of rape. And if that’s not compelling enough evidence, the protagonist goes so far as to make a joke that drives the point home. This is not subtle stuff, here. This is less ‘leaping to a conclusion’ and more ‘looking at what is presented and being capable of using critical reasoning to reach a very logical conclusion’. If the fact that this is a scene depicting rape isn’t obvious to you, I don’t know what to say; I can only assume there’s too much privilege at work for you to see the issue clearly.
Andrew said
“forcibly inserting into another an appendage designed to impregnate”
This was not in the game. In the scene in question, the women are bound to the floor, wearing underwear, and some (admittedly stupid) lines were spouted. The primary offender here is the imagination of the beholder, as no rape was depicted. The results of it, arguably – though there are plenty of parasites that can spawn within humans without ‘rape’ (like schistosomiasis).
If women get painted green and tied to slimy trees, we’ll know Duke Nukem has had a negative influence. I respect your right to be offended of course, but this whirlwind of attention will only serve to offend more people and alienate those who enjoy Duke Nukem. Had it not been for Jims exaggerated review, the impact of this game would have been exactly as it should have been – totally negligible.
Wigwam said
Hi Andrew. I’ve seen the scene in question, and despite there being no on screen penetration, it’s not a huge jump to make to suppose rape. The noises the women make, the fact it’s pretty much outright stated that they’re being made pregnant.
What’s going on here is a sceen that says basicallly, “it’s fine to have rape in your game, as long as no genitals get shown! because that would just be sick”. There’s no effort made to sympathise with any of the “babes” either. The scene is presented as if this is just a normal thing to happen. “Oh, women get raped. Life goes on I guess.”
Andrew said
Duke Nukem ‘sympathies’ (aside from his horrible one-liner) as much as a misogynistic dunce like Duke Nukem can, dropping other one-liners in a sorrowful tone,
While I agree that rape is implied and that the leap isn’t massive, critically I don’t see the connection to the kind of rape that we are actually concerned about – that is, people being raped by other people. There is no glorification or encouragement of the behavior beyond the inclusion of its implication, and how a man might re-create these scenes is beyond me.
Wigwam said
You bring up a good point in regards to Duke Nukem’s actual personality. It’s clear the game’s meant to be a ridiculous parody, and even supposed to be a parody of Duke’s misogynistic attitude, but it’s possible that over the course of 15 years that got lost and the result made the scene, and many other points in the game come across as sympathetic to the Duke (this spread to the marketing as well), as opposed to portraying him as more of a character to laugh at, or somewhere between the two. I might be giving the devs a lot of credit there, but the game’s disjointedness might just have been the result of the developers just failing to care exactly what they were making anymore.
Regarding the point about encouraging rape, this scene indeed doesn’t show rape as positive, but it doesn’t show it as negative either, as I said, it comes across as just a thing that happens, and that’s the line of thinking that leads to rape culture- I’m not saying everyone who leaves this game is going to come away thinking rape is normal, either. Succeptability to ideas varies from person to person, but when a mainstream game contains that message, it’s spreading harmful ideas around.
Andrew said
I largely agree, and concede that this scene can only send a negative message, however minimal that might be. The game has every right to exist, though. Freedom of expression is annoying that way. :)
Wigwam said
In that case I think we’re basically agreed. :)
Christopher said
No, we do not support rape by playing and supporting this game, anymore than we support real-life rape by playing and supporting games like RapeLay (look it up to see a REAL rape game).
It’s time to realize that fantasy is fantasy and that there is absolutely nothing wrong in fantasy, no matter how ‘sick’ someone thinks your fantasy is.
You can blow apart puppies, forcibly rape adults and even children, etc. in fantasy and as long as you are NOT DOING THOSE THINGS IN REAL LIFE, there is nothing wrong with that in the slightest.
Personally, I am hoping that the Japanese with make a TRUE rape FPS to shut up the people who are bashing on Duke Nukem Forever…. oh wait, they already did that…. go to Getchu.com and it will show you numerous examples of that if you know what to search for.
anna said
Officially tired of explaining this. Please see here for a summary, and read the reference material for more detail. tl;dr you’re wrong, and there IS something wrong with it (even if you are not ‘doing those things in real life’). All of our actions have consequences, and those consequences are often far more subtle and far-reaching than you seem to think.
And, yes, I know about RapeLay, and numerous other eroge titles that involve sexual assault and rape as themes. Congratulations! You are capable of pointing out other examples of rape culture! However, those games didn’t recently enjoy a major release in the country I happen to live in, and no one is jumping to their defense at the moment (well, other than you). Everything that can be said about them already has. Just because worse things exist is no reason not to call out something that is also bad.
Mike said
All I hear is some dude or chick nagging about a silly video game. Everyone has a different world view, some people hate that people abort babies others do not care on the least. The simple fact is everyone is allowed to play and watch what they want so long they are not harming people. To say people support rape because they enjoy a video game is just plain silly as if you have that mind set then what is and isn’t ok? So people say that a cross with Jesus in urine is art and others are extremely offended but yet it is still in an art museum. Does looking at the cross in urine mean that all people who view it as art mean they support placing peoples deities in urine? You can see where I’m going with this at this point. If you do not like something the simple answer is don’t buy it or avoid it but stop trying to let your harmonies demand what is and isn’t ok. At the end of the day your feelings do not matter this is a free country we live in with all types of world views just learn to deal with change and different view points.
Lindsey said
Well, Mike, I’m sure that your feelings on the matter are rooted in your own personal baggage, but don’t you think that you should consider other people’s feelings especially since you are clearly so controlled by your own? “Your feelings do not matter this is a free country.” Actually, what you are saying here is that the people who wrote this post and comments are the people who don’t matter, your own feelings do though, right? You feel strongly enough against this post that you felt the need to write a reply and then have the audacity to suggest that we’re all wasting our time discussing this? This is a free country, at least for some people, and that means we have the freedom to discuss anything we want. But just because this is a free country doesn’t mean people’s feelings don’t matter. If you were raped like I was, I think you would want people to care, don’t you? I would discuss the video game itself, but it has already been eloquently written about. See above conversations, especially Wigwam and Andrew if you want to educate yourself. You’re don’t have to, of course, free country and all.
t.d. said
I’d like to point out that the whole thing was a pretty obvious parody of the ‘Alien’ series. You’ve got the pregnators, which, as the facehuggers do, shove their tail/egg injection appendage down a person’s throat, and quickly gestate a wormlike creature, which kills the host. Hell, even the queens look the same, minus scale and the whole three tits in the case of the game.
The game truly is misogynist probably one of the most misogynist works of art ever to exist, but you can’t really say it endorses rape in any meaningful way. Duke initially puts off stopping the aliens altogether because he wishes to rescue the helpless women first. Just about every line he has in reference to the situation shows genuine concern for the women. Yes, he speaks about them like they are his collective property, but ultimately duke is stopping the alien rape factory in order to save ‘his’ women. The line you focused so much on was one of the one liners he tends to throw around to anyone who dies a colorful death, a rather sanguine type of humor thrown at allies and enemy alike.
To say that the game adds no value to the world is simply untrue. It’s a fun bit of escapism that lasts a few hours with a ridiculous protagonist who really can’t be deterred at all by anything, much like serious sam. The game was definitely made far too casual but it was still fun, and enjoyable. Not Duke3d by any standards, but still an enjoyable game.
thedragoness said
I really wanted to like this game, and everything else, the Capture the Babe mode, the fact it’s not a decent game, I could look past. The alien rape I could accept in the context of the story. But with three little words the game became something I did not want in the house. I’m frankly pissed off that I supported the game by buying it. In fact, Australia should have banned Duke Nukem rather than Mortal Kombat. A game that opens with a woman sliced in half being ripped apart by vultures, where said woman can brutally slaughter people, is less offensive.