Gays and Minorities as villians in fictional media... Good? Bad?

[Heronblade]

Only if one makes a big deal out of it, (IE some character implying that "OF COURSE the dude is evil, he is X after all" )

To put it another way, given anything resembling random distribution, some villain somewhere is bound to happen to be a minority or gay. To deliberately select otherwise is to imply that such behavior is exclusively the province of straight Caucasians, which is far worse of an offense.

 

[Darken12]

If you want to demonize black people, you say point blank that black people are evil. Not just have a bunch of black villain.

No, that's outright hate speech. Demonisation is more subtle and (as I understand it), it's the systematic portrayal of a group in a negative light. If you have black people as villains and nothing else, this is portraying them in a negative light, and you are subtly demonising them without actually coming out and saying it. It's a great way to be racist without being accused of hate speech, since you can let the audience draw their own conclusions from what you're showing them.

You mean the zombies? Once something becomes a zombie it's not human. It's race is no longer relevant and zombies all act the same regardless of race, gender, age or whatever they used to be as a human.

Yes, I know, but that doesn't change the fact that they chose for the game to take place in Africa instead of anywhere else in the world. I'm not making moral condemnations. I'm not getting up in arms or grabbing my torch and pitchfork, I'm simply stating facts. Regardless of whether they were zombies or not, most of the enemies in RE5 were black. That's it.

I've mentioned a ton of games with minority protagonists, I think we're going to need something more official to determine if they're more often the villains or not and if it's by a significant amount.

I would agree, but I don't really think that's the important thing. I think that even if the treatment has been egalitarian in terms of protagonist vs. antagonist, it's still pretty shady to portray a minority as a villain when they still don't have an egalitarian representation in the media. Since the industry cannot be trusted to have the best interests of minorities in their hearts, how do we know whether the minority as a villain is a genuine attempt at inclusion (and therefore something to be happy about) or a subtle attempt to cash in on ingrained sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and so on to make their villains more detestable (which is something to be sad/disappointed/angry about)?

That article is terrible, it's gotten facts wrong and it's just so flimsy some of it's prejudices. It says that in God of War you slaughter hordes of non-white people which is the exact opposite of reality. Seriously most of your enemies in that series are either white or not human. I talked to the writer about it and he gave some flimsy explanation about how his real problem is that they got a black voice actor so clearly they wanted to have a black character without actually having a black character (as if he could read the minds of developers).

Don't have time to read the others right now, I might get back to them though.

My bad, I didn't play most of the games mentioned, so I didn't know the article was factually incorrect.

Unless you have stock in a game company you shouldn't be too concerned with what doesn't sell. If you want it badly enough you can keep asking for it and they might try it. So yeah I agree with you on that.

Yes, I know, but people still think "it won't sell" is a valid excuse to ignore minorities. This cropped up a lot in the Gaymercon thread, or whenever female/black/etc protagonists are brought up.

EDIT:

I also remember hearing Yahtzee mentioning several times that the "action-adventure games set in scenic landscapes" genre (Uncharted, Far Cry, Tomb Rider and the like) had a propensity for making enemies out of racial minorities.

I which case either you or him are wrong. I've only played Uncharted 2, but in it all the villains are white. Far Cry 1 has white villans, 2 has a fairly even mix of ethnicities for heroes and villains but the main villain is white, 3 has a white villain although his main henchman is Asian. Of the Tomb Raider games I've played (1, 2, 4, Chronicles, Angel of Darkness, Legend, Underworld and the reboot) there's only a handful of times I can remember fighting non-white enemies who weren't undead, and all the major villains were white.

I was probably thinking of these reviews:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/27-Uncharted-Drakes-Fortune

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/510-Far-Cry-2

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/616-50-Cent-Blood-on-the-Sand

And yes, the last one does have a minority protagonist, but suffers from the same "American goes to fuck up foreigners" thing a lot of shooters love.

 

[Angie7F]

Well, to be fair, I think many Japanese games make caucasians the villains.
I think it is always an us vs them thing, and as long as there is a good story that supports the conflict, then I am ok with it.

 

[Lovely Mixture]

You can create contrast and similarities with how you make your villain and protagonist.
By making stronger features (skin color, sexuality, religion) you can emphasize this.

You can argue it might be demonization, but you can also argue that it can make one side more sympathetic.

In Drive, one of the main villains was mentioned at being Jewish. A Jewish woman thought this was demonizing Jews and sued (and lost thankfully), she failed to realize that this made the villain more human and actually created a reason for his actions in the film (basically what he does in the film is motivated by the fact that his mafia family has been ostracizing him and "calling him a kike").


Though I do agree that it is controversial to have a black or muslim villain with a white protagonist.

I think it is always an us vs them thing, and as long as there is a good story that supports the conflict, then I am ok with it.

It is really funny when you observe this. Sometimes it comes out of nowhere, other times it's well handled.


I agree with you though, if it's handled well it does work. I find when it's badly handled, the anime usually isn't good quality.

Ie. Summer Wars ended with the US government receiving blame for the whole plot of the movie, despite one of the major characters having a lot of responsibility for it.

 

[Batou667]

I think you've missed the criticism here.

The issue with Disney is that they deliberately coded these characters as "gay" (by making them camp, effeminate, butch or whatever, not necessarily by setting out to making a character who will be read as gay) to illustrate that they are bad. It's part of the visual language Disney uses, which is why you don't see heroes or supporting characters being coded as gay in Disney films.

Eh? Which Disney characters were "coded" gay?

Gaston was an over-masculine meathead.

Jafar wanted to marry the Princess to become Sultan.

Judge Frollo had a bit of a "lavendar streak" about him but I assumed his manicured appearance was there to emphasise the "man/beast, internal/external" theme and to differentiate him all the more from Quasimodo.

In Toy Story, the villains are a bullying kid, a covetous geek, and the almost interchangeable miner/bear who were both conservative, paternalistic figures.

In Lion King... geeze, now I'm spending my Saturday speculating on whether an animated Lion is gay or not. I think it'd be true to say that a great many Disney villains share characteristics, but to conclude that they're "coded" gay (that's a phrase with a luxurious degree of wriggle-room, isn't it?) is an unwarranted leap. Most of the stereotypical Disney
villains also have dark hair, are thin, and have British accents. It's just a trope.

 

[Something Amyss]

Life is not politically correct, nor will it ever be.

Thankfully, the most relevance political correctness has ever had in this culture was mediocre standup comedy in the 90s.

It's especially thankful since the whole "coded gay" argument came from a point where the notion of "any" traits associated with some culture is nothing but a strawman.

Look, there are examples of villains who are gay, many of which have been listed. What this was about, really, is the context of adding gay traits (plural) to make someone villainous. If Disney had made a straight up (pardon the pun) gay villain, we probably wouldn't even be having this discussion, but at the same time that doesn't validate some ridiculous argument for happenstance and tangential offense, either.

Nuances are tough. I understand this. People seem to think all cases are created equal, but this is like the difference between Hitman: Absolution's stripper nuns and the S&M gang the Morningstar from Saints Row the Third. One got complaints, the other didn't, though there were many similarities. It's almost like context matters, or something.

it's not the existence of "gay traits" that's an issue. It's the repeated use of "gay traits" as shorthand for something. In this case, villain. Nor is it by chance that it happens. This is not some accidental cultural brush-up but rather a repeated, systemic issues.

Everyone wants to be treated equally but as soon as the villain is anything but a white male, everyone is being raaaaacist.

Except there are tons of movies with black villains, female villains, etc.

I mean, it sound good until you actually apply thought to it. Then it just looks like a persecution fetish.

 

[Something Amyss]

Jafar wanted to marry the Princess to become Sultan.

and only to become Sultan.

Kinda seeing a flaw in your defense here.

 

[Something Amyss]

If you want to demonize black people, you say point blank that black people are evil. Not just have a bunch of black villain.

That's not historically true. Hell, even in modern times, there are better ways to hurt a group than by saying "I hate you."

You will find, in life, most people aren't so direct.

You mean the zombies? Once something becomes a zombie it's not human. It's race is no longer relevant and zombies all act the same regardless of race, gender, age or whatever they used to be as a human.

Point of fact: While the issue of RE5 is one I'm going to avoid, Zombies rose to prominence due to a fear of the evil negro. To say race plays no significance is to ignore that the only reason we have zombies is because good God-fearing white folk were piss scared of them evil negroes and their satanous ways.

That article is terrible, it's gotten facts wrong and it's just so flimsy some of it's prejudices.

To be fair, it's Cracked. Anyone who takes it seriously should probably lose credibility to begin with, and anyone who sites it should DEFINITELY lose credibility.

Unless you have stock in a game company you shouldn't be too concerned with what doesn't sell. If you want it badly enough you can keep asking for it and they might try it. So yeah I agree with you on that.

It's not "what doesn't sell." The fact is, this is also the mindset of Hollywood, but I don't see Will smith going broke. The point he appears to be making is that even people ostensibly on the side of more minority representation will often concede based no this point, this perception. That, in itself, is an inequity problem.

Also, please note the reason that a minority protagonist won't sell, according to this logic, is that the straight hwite dude can't "relate" to them. It's hard not to see that logic as a touch racist/sexist/whatever, especially in games where skin colour or gender does little to inform the plot.

Then again, if you read threads on the subject often enough, you'll see plenty of evidence that people really can't relate to anyone who isn't basically a fanfic version of themselves.

 

[peruvianskys]

To me, having a flaming homo stereotype as a protagonist/antagonist in a work of art is offensive, but so is having a protagonist/antagonist who is in every way indistinguishable from a straight person but arbitrarily labeled gay once or twice in the screenplay for added "diversity" points. LGBT people are not all flamboyant queens, but they are also not exactly the same as straight people. In our admirable rush to fight stereotypes, can't go too far in the other direction and pretend that there is no unique LGBT experience that influences sexual minorities; at that point, you go from offensive caricature to erasure, and both are shitty. We need to have LGBT characters who are developed enough as human beings that their sexuality is a meaningful element of their personality without letting them cross over into parody.

tl;dr gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender men and women have unique experiences and outlooks based on their sexuality and pretending that those things don't exist by writing characters as straight and awkwardly dropping "but he's gay!" every few pages in the script is no more respectful than having them all be flaming fags.

 

[The Funslinger]

Trying to craft a character which has no characteristics once associated with some social group or ethnicity will eventually lead to the Greendale Human Being.

And anything starring him/her/it would inevitably fall into the horror genre.

 

[ImperialSunlight]

So suppose we had a straight up Disney film, with an openly gay villain character who's sexuality bared nothing on the plot. Is that by it's very nature, a negative because he is the villain or should it be considered a positive due to his antagonistic role being unrelated to his sexuality? Is it morally okay to have villains with different sexual orientation, or race, or religion?

If they specifically point out his/her homosexuality even though it has no relevance whatsoever, and it's a villainous character, I wouldn't say it's necessarily negative, just kind of... really, really stupid. What's the point of going out of your way in film to say "Oh, hey, by the way, I'm gay!" for no reason at all?" I think that would be more offensive than the character being a villain.

 

[Xanadu84]

This is what annoys me about the, "Political correctness blaaahhh!!" school of arguing against feminism/gay rights/whatever. ONE villain does not matter. Taken alone, any discriminatory trope is harmless, and the feminists/gay rights/whatever people arn't saying that they are bad. They are saying that when a culture as a whole is DEDICATED to that trope, where the exceptions to the rule are outliers and often touted around like the, "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" argument (This one anecdotal example overrides a vast and overpowering correlation to the opposite), you have real problems. Ultimately, the fact that the bad guy acts gay, or the princess is always useless, passive, and saved by a man (To drag a certain other feminist theory figure that is on our minds of late) is not a problem, because that is within reason for a fictional story. The problem is that media portrays these groups with such consistency that regardless of what the individual story is trying to say, the medium as a whole is definitely portraying a very specific worldview. It's not a problem when a bad guy is a fop (As Lindsey and Rantasmo point out). Its that nearly every last shred of material even kind of correlating with our image of being gay is always the exact same perspective on that group. And a gay villain would be completely fine. But its boring, reductiovist, predictable and making a serious insinuation when out of an infinite number of possibilities for how a gay villain can act, they are required to act in a very specific way, especially when straight villains have no such limitations.

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

If it is done right, then I have no problem with it. When the villains are defined by being gay/bi, or by being a minority, that's where the problem comes in. For example, let's go back to an old Bond movie, Diamonds are Forever. Now, that was a crappy movie, and probably the worst of the Sean Connery official Bond movies. However, the reason I bring it up is because the henchmen of the film are one of the most memorable things of the film. Their names are Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd, and they are two of the most memorable henchmen in Bond movies. Hell, they even got referenced in the show Codename: Kids Next Door, with two of the recurring villains in that show being a pair of men with the names Mr. Wink and Mr. Fib.

Why do I mention all this? Well, Mr. Wint and Mr. Kidd were gay lovers. The movie was made in the 60's, so it wasn't all over the place shoved in your faces, but it was still pretty obvious in this scene.


However, they not only gave Bond more trouble than the actual villain, they were the ones doing all the named character killing off for said villain. That, to me, is why I don't mind them being a bit camp. They are gay, but they are still serious villains despite that. Compare that to, say, Sally-Don't-Dance from Con Air. Don't get me wrong, that movie is one of the most terribly awesome movies of the 90's, and that character is intentionally funny. However, the character was just there to be the comic relief, and was a case of "It's funny because he's a transvestite!"

I think you've missed the criticism here.

The issue with Disney is that they deliberately coded these characters as "gay" (by making them camp, effeminate, butch or whatever, not necessarily by setting out to making a character who will be read as gay) to illustrate that they are bad. It's part of the visual language Disney uses, which is why you don't see heroes or supporting characters being coded as gay in Disney films.

Eh? Which Disney characters were "coded" gay?

Gaston was an over-masculine meathead.

Jafar wanted to marry the Princess to become Sultan.

Judge Frollo had a bit of a "lavendar streak" about him but I assumed his manicured appearance was there to emphasise the "man/beast, internal/external" theme and to differentiate him all the more from Quasimodo.

In Toy Story, the villains are a bullying kid, a covetous geek, and the almost interchangeable miner/bear who were both conservative, paternalistic figures.

In Lion King... geeze, now I'm spending my Saturday speculating on whether an animated Lion is gay or not. I think it'd be true to say that a great many Disney villains share characteristics, but to conclude that they're "coded" gay (that's a phrase with a luxurious degree of wriggle-room, isn't it?) is an unwarranted leap. Most of the stereotypical Disney
villains also have dark hair, are thin, and have British accents. It's just a trope.

Well, Prince John from Robin Hood was a bit...effeminate, to say the least. And he did spend all day with Sir Hiss by his side. Just saying.

 

[repeating integers]

Bayonetta has Balder, who is dressed as a fucking peacock, though I haven't played the game so I don't know if he's campy too.

He's definitely campy. I have to say, though, as a member of society's most privileged group, I didn't think of him as gay and he certainly didn't make me uncomfortable because of any such insinuations. I hated him because he was an arrogant, smug, psychopathic twat - the flamboyance, rather than bring to mind homosexuality, contributed to this character impression.

 

[Aethren]

Tons of gay villains in anime, though it's typically played for comedic effect.

 

[Batou667]

Jafar wanted to marry the Princess to become Sultan.

and only to become Sultan.

Kinda seeing a flaw in your defense here.

I dunno, he seemed fairly upbeat about the prospect of romancing Princess Jasmine, or perhaps that was just me projecting? Don't judge, I was only 10.

Anyway, I'm still not seeing the "gay coding" in Disney villains. Anti-heroic traits? Sure. Elements of foppishness or flamboyance to underline a vain and/or megalomaniacal personality? Absolutely. But gay? Unless the gay viewer is themselves a stooped, raven-haired and emaciated figure with a talking animal sidekick, I don't see how they could reasonably take offence.

 

[Zealous]

As long as the character isn't defined by [whatever] and the story doesn't imply that all people who are [whatever] are evil then there's no problem in my books. That's just my humble opinion as a white middle class male. I'm sure some black, lesbian woman who is a follower of Judaism somewhere disagrees with me though.

 

[Cheesepower5]

Eh, I don't think it's bad to have gay characters as villains, but when there's too much of that, of course people will want something else. I think the modern day is a lot better for that, though, most gay characters in TV now are at least having effort put into being normalized.

And to be fair, Ursula may have been pretty butch and Jaffar somewhat effeminized, but I wouldn't call Frollo gay. Plot kinda' revolves around him wanting Gypsy poon.

 

[Moderated]

Only white straight men can ever do anything wrong. Anything displaying anything but a white straight male as evil is clearly racist/sexist/discriminatory/worth noting.