Thanks for assuming that I am some extremist who despises men. That was really amusing. I feel like a lot of confusion could be be solved if some of you bothered to Google the definition of 'feminism'. I used male pronouns because the most high profile cases in the news are about men, usually celebrities, committing domestic abuse against women, and because I'm trying to relate it to your responses to what happened in the game. If you'd like, I'd comment on how annoyed I am by how female on male violence is often portrayed as a joke, even in recent films such as Wreck It Ralph. Though I imagine this may go over some of your heads because of your ignorance of the definition of feminism. I don't know where a lot of you are based, but I live in Australia and literally everyone I know - teachers, friends and many television personalities - identifies as feminist.
I'll stop commenting on this thread it you'd prefer. I only commented because I was seriously disturbed by some of the responses on this topic. The only reason I'm still responding is to clarify my points. I don't know how the Witcher handled domestic abuse, and I am aware now that their intention was not to be sympathetic to the abuser, but I know how you guys here seem to handle it. A fairly large portion of you seem to sympathise with the abuser's predicament, and this is fine when the situation is fictional and you know everything about the situation. However, when real life abuse happens, sympathy towards the abuser also occurs, even when not all the details are known. The responses in this thread are eerily similar to responses to real life domestic abuse cases ('they were both at fault' and 'she cheated on him') and that was the point I was trying to comment on.
I can believe that the Witcher handled this subject in a sensitive way. I, however, do not believe its players are capable of handling this subject, judging by the comments I currently see on this topic.
This is why portrayals of such sensitive subjects, in my opinion, should not be in video games. There are so many other morally grey situations to explore in works of fantasy fiction: a ruler starving their subjects in order to wage war, vigilante fighters, assassins, sacrificing loved ones to save a nation.
The point of defense isn't whether or not he is a sympathetic abuser. Most every response-- if not all-- it has been stated that he had no excuse for hitting his wife. The contention was whether he is redeemable. No one was saying he had a right to hit his wife, they were pointing out that neither side was innocent and that it was the epitome of dysfunction. To say that the Baron was the sole perpetrater of that dysfunction would be erroneous. He came back from a war suffering from PTSD to find his wife cheating. He killed her lover in a fit of rage and his wife began abusing him. He began drinking heavily and after she tried to stab him to death, he began to abuse her in return. At the end, and with Geralt's help, the Baron stops drinking and realizes how wrong he was and vows to do better. Depending on a decision the player makes, the Baron can try to redeem himself and tries to repair the harm his part caused.
No one is disputing that the Baron is an asshat. They're simply pointing out that this story isn't black and white and that it dips into dysfunction on both sides. They're pointing out that while the Baron is a jerk and an abuser, but so is she.
I think it's an unfair statement to make that players can't handle this story line. I think those who actually played the mission have a pretty good grip on the situation. I think those who haven't played the mission are seeing one side of the argument and are choosing a side. There is no side. Both are sick, both are at fault-- which again, is what people are saying.
Retour en haut
. lol!!
