Gala Phoenix released a new set of skins entitled Battle Royale.
Prokofy Neva does not like them.
Now, now, I know what you all are thinking. “What’s new about that? Prokofy hates everything.”
“I can only protest. It’s wrong. Battering women — or men — or children — isn’t right. It’s not cool. It’s not “fashionable”. Why would anyone think it is “beautiful”?!” Prokofy Neva
The skins were named after the brilliant 2000 film directed by Kinji Fukasaku about 9th grade students who were left on an abandoned island and forced to battle each other to the death until only one remains. It’s a nasty little movie, very Lord of the Flies, and has some amazing female protagonists who defend themselves using the weapons they were given by the corporation who orchestrates the battle. In one of my favourite scenes, a girl named Chigusa is asked by a boy named Niida if she will have sex with him before they die. Chigusa spurns his advances and Niida threatens to rape her. He shoots an arrow at her that grazes her face and Chigusa says “You scarred my face.” Niida answers “It’s your fault, you made me mad.” And then Chigusa goes after him with a knife and stabs him in the groin numerous times.
It’s a futuristic movie set in a world where people misbehave so they are left alone to battle it out.
It has NOTHING to do with the glorification of the abuse towards women, which has been suggested.
No one on Profky’s blog asked Gala how she felt about the skins. Gala sent me a note stating:
I in no way advocate or promote violence against women. Having been in an abusive relationship in the past, I’m fully aware of how serious this issue is to many women. I created the “Battle Royale” series in response to the hundreds of requests I’ve received for a tough, tomboyish line of skins.  The skins weren’t meant to depict violence towards women at the hands of men. Of course a few people will interpret it that way and I’m aware that residents of the BDSM community might purchase them with this interpretation in mind.  Ultimately these women are being subjected to virtual violence with their own consent, and thus, are not victims of domestic abuse.”
The issue here is that people taking offense to the skins are not being reasonable. AT ALL. The skins are called “Battle Royale.” Not “The Accused” not “I’m a weak, helpless female who gets beaten up by men.” The skins were created in the spirit of the Fukasaku movie, which depicts some very kickass heroines battling to the end.
I agree with Prok on this. Battering women and men and children is not right or cool or fashionable. It is not beautiful. But that is not the spirit in which these skins were made. And I find these skins beautiful. To me they speak of power and toughness and I find them a lot more aesthetically pleasing then the typical SL skins, which far too often depict some doe-eyed, bee-stung lipped, enhanced-cleavage porno star. I find that far more abusive and dangerous then creating a skin where the the avatar looks like she got in one hell of a fight.
Second life resident Scylla Rhiadra is calling for a boycott of Gala’s products illustrated in the notecard, entitled ” Boycott Gala Phoenix Products” below.
Gala Phoenix has recently produced a new line of skins entitled “Battle Royale Defeated” that depict a woman with incrementally serious cuts, bruises, and other injuries.
http://juicybomb.typepad.com/blog/2009/10/gala-phoenix-battle-royale-skins.html
“Rape Skins” are nothing new to SL, but this incursion into the fashion mainstream of “Abuse Chic” is vastly more insidious and dangerous. PLEASE BOYCOTT GALA PHOENIX PRODUCTS until this horrendous trivialization of violence against women is removed from sale. And please spread the word.
Gala’s stores include Curio, Luck Inc., and Alady.
I don’t know about you guys, but this all smacks of some sort of anti-feminist rhetoric to me. Can only men in SL get away with wearing a beaten up skin? Because people like Scylla Rhiadra assume only men can play “Boy games” like boxer or post-apocalyptic survivor or fireman or any other “stereotypical boy” role on Second Life. If a woman dons a skins with cuts and bruises she is representing “abuse chic” and violence at the hand of some man. I know just as many women, if not more, who wear skins like this at The Wastelands or horror sims or for flickr-ing pictures of themselves dressed in boxing gear. And ya know what? This is our right. Not every woman on SL wants to wear “beautiful” skins. Not every woman feels the need to be “typically attractive” in the representation of her avatar. I can be completely against the abuse of anyone, male or female, and still wear a skin like the Battle Royale. I’m not going to conform to what you feel is pretty or acceptable or OK in your mind. Fuck you and your misogynistic views. Women can be just as kickass as men can.
You can view more pics of this skin at: http://juicybomb.typepad.com/blog/2009/10/gala-phoenix-battle-royale-skins.html
Loading ...
As someone who is in the "BDSM Community" it has precious little to do with having a skin that looks like you got your ass kicked, and more to do with other things that have nothing to do with violence. I'm kind of sick of people associating one with the other.
That being said. The skins are fine. They are no better or worse than any other beat up skin I've ever seen that is quality, and everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
It's a skin, people, lighten the hell up. Seriously, go do something charitable and step off this soapbox.
"I'm kind of sick of people associating one with the other. "
Agreed. I got tired of explaining this to the vanilla in RL many years ago…I don't even discuss the lifestyle anymore…but the association (though no offense meant) does irritate me still from time to time.
Also editing this to say, it has *nothing* to do with having a skin that looks like you got your ass kicked.
Prok's article, and the pages of comments bothered me on many levels. Not least the assumption that the BDSM community will jump on these skins. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone in silks sporting bruises, although I can recall numerous occasions on sims such as COLA where bruises are common, cos ya earned them in a fight! I also think that article says much about the writer's perception of not only themselves, but other women in sl. If you want to find sinister meanings behind everything, thats exactly what you will see. I see kickass, I see strong women and I refuse to be told by anyone what I'm thinking or feeling if I choose to wear marks on my uber perfect pixel ass
Thank you Gat for saying far more eloquently what I've been dying to say for the last 12 hours. <3
I'm so glad Prokofy blogged these skins – I didn't know they were out yet. Going to purchase them today.
And as for the inane blog post from Prokofy – Try getting blog hits for something valid, not just some personal vendetta bullshit. Seems like every single thing you post reeks of that. I'm sorry no one picked you for kickball, but try putting on a happy face every now and again and stop stirring shit.
Blogging formula: Well-known creator name + Ridiculous leaps/accusations + Shitty blog = BLOG HITS SPIKE!
Stop projecting and go outside, Prok.
Men put on a battered skin and they're a battle hero, tough guy, kick-ass fighter.
Women put on a battered skin and they're a rape victim.
Hrm, what's wrong with this picture?
P.S. We should all boycott those goddamn zombie skins because they've obviously been ravaged against their will, and it's insulting. Oh, and those skins that look really shiny, because they were oiled up against their will. Those poor women never saw the grease coming.
Maybe you should wear one in tribute to male rape victims? I dunno. Just a thought. We should even the playing field.
I'd also like to make a recommendation to Prok –
If you're not happy with the direction that content is heading in SL, I suggest you log in and make your own. Make a full line of Stepford skins or sundresses.
Be proactive, stop complaining. People waving signs and writing diatribes has never accomplished anything. If there's a change you think needs making, make it yourself.
I posted a comment on Proks blog about this, though yet again it seems she chose not to display it as she always does with anything I say, so I will say what I said here.
Prok is totally missing the point about these skins, it does not mean we want to look like we've been bashed up in a domestic violence incident. For most of us it's about recreating the tough girl kickassness look of women like Uma Thurman in Kill Bill.
Watching Battle Royale (love that film!) didn't make me want to fight for my life on an island and putting on skin named after it doesn't make me think, "wow, a guy beat me up. How cool!" I bought the demos and think they're good quality work that could be used for some interesting photoshoots.
To Ms. (?) Rhiadra I'd suggest stepping away from the Andrea Dworkin around the time of 'Pornography' school of thought.
Actually, I've never been a big fan of Ms. Dworkin, as you might perhaps have guessed had you read any of my actual comments on this issue elsewhere. But then, as you couldn't be bothered to glance across the screen to ascertain my first name, that's probably a bit much to expect.
Thank you Scylla, the question mark was referring to whether you preferred the designation of Ms. before your surname. I'm quite aware of the legend of Scylla and Charybdis. I do offer an apology for not reading your comments thoroughly, but not for making a judgement about your call for a boycott. There are more positive ways to have open debate, in my view, but that is your choice as a resident.
I bought the fatpack on Saturday. It's true that I'll probably only use the majority of them for costumes or little photoshoots to amuse myself but, even being unfamiliar with the film, I never once thought 'abused woman' when I saw them. I thought things like "Oh, catfight!" (I'm Neko), "Do I have any boxing gear?" and "That one with the stitched scars would be awesome for a pirate!"
The negative assumptions which have been made as to why the skins were created or why someone would buy them are just…ridiculous. I don't have a better word for it. RIDICULOUS.
I don't agree with the boycott nor do I agree that those boycotting are misogynistic either. I think whats going on here is some folks are embracing the ideas behind cultural feminism (i.e. rejecting the notion that men and women are the same and instead attempting to laud the attributes and cultural concepts designated as largely female) but at the same time missing the point of cultural feminism. From the cultural feminist perspective taking on some traditional male attributes such as dominance, power, violence does not constitute equality. If these folks were protesting to say "why should we celebrate skins or movies featuring women taking on the attributes considered traditionally male that are inherently negative – violence rape etc" vs "these are depicting battered women so they we need to protest them" maybe I could buy their argument. But that's not what they are doing – they are skewing all of this to fit it into their perspective of reality. We don't know who is abusing who or who is fighting who in this story. Will I buy these skins? NO! Never! But would i boycott an artist for depicting an image they feel compelled to portray – absolutely not.
Actually, Lizzie, I'd love to make the argument you suggest should be made — and I gesture in that direction in the comment I've added below. I entirely agree that the ethos of feminism should consist of a great deal more than "beating men at their own game." It's that kind of approach that labels Margaret Thatcher a "great feminist." However, that's a rather different argument, I think, than the point that I am trying to make about images that normalize violence against women. But it's one I'd be happy to take up some other time (and indeed, have, elsewhere).
Your comment about Gala as an "artist" is more relevant, I think. For one thing, I think "art" is a term rather subject to overuse in SL. Gala's skins aren't for quiet thoughtful contemplation or exercises in hermeneutics: they are functional tools for RP. It is not the "art" that I object to, but the ambiguity over that functionality.
Take for example Leni Riefenstahl's "Triumph of the Will." Brilliant film, and unquestionably "art," but were it being screened as part of a Neo-Nazi rally, yes, I'd object to it being shown because of the function it was being made to serve. Similarly, if Gala's skins are left ambiguously marketed in a way that allows people to think that they represent victims of domestic violence, I am similarly going to object, "art" or not. Context is all.
They are not ambiguously marketed, though. The very name, Battle Royale, makes explicit that these are the skins of women who battle – not women who are battered.
I've had "beat up" skins made by Violet Laviolette for what? 2 years now? She quit I guess. But these type of skins are nothing new.
Actually, Ann, that's part of my point. Gala, intentionally or not, has enrolled these new skins in an entire culture that caters to that segment of SL who RP violence against women.
Yes Ann, you do NOT understand. There is an entire segmenf of SL who RPs violence against women. First, they take e-guns and they hold them to the head of woman and FORCE them to accept 1000 lindens to e-purchase these skins. If they do not buy the skins, they are e-threatened. Then after they buy the skins, they are forced to wear them through more e-threats and women, because they are sad and weak and helpless, comply with this. Then when they have finally accepted the money and purchased the skins and worn them they are then told THEY HAVE TO engage in some violence against women RP. These women are far too terrified to say no or turn off their computers or teleport away because they are women. It is not like men who wear beaten up skins, who knows what they are doing. Scylla is going to take us all on a SL field trip where we can see the women being violently RP'd against. And afterwards we can all get an e-smoothie.
This is ridiculous. I've always worn beaten up skins. I wore one in my Post 6 article at the Alphaville Herald (http://foo.secondlifeherald.com/slh/2009/09/selon... and some guy accused me of being a sadomasochist. Can't people understand that there are those of us who want to look different, to not look like perfect little Barbies, and who maybe play rough? I'm always bruised and cut from my lifestyle choice (the Army) – trust me, these aren't the scars of a "helpless victim". And why are these skins all of a sudden not acceptable…?
OH YEAH! And see, my mom raised me to get dirty and play rough and explore and kick balls and climb trees. Why should we HAVE to look all prim and cute and what people view as "feminine" if we don't want to? This all is just such weird backwords thinking. NO THIS WOMAN HAS BRUISES SHE MUST BE ABUSED, SHE COULD HAVE NEVER GOTTEN THOSE SCARS FROM PLAYING RUGBY OR BEING IN THE MILITARY!
Oh yawn.
Everyone (especially Prok) needs to pull the fucking sensitivity sticks out of their asses already. Not everything is made with the intent to insult, harm, suggest, or degrade. Sometimes, creation is just that – creation. It's open to interpretation, but once again, opinions are like assholes – everyone has one. Some are just louder than others. *coughs*
It's a pixel skin in a pixel world where people will use it in whatever pixel manner they want. The end.
As for boycotting Gala Phoenix – HAH. Yeah. That'll happen. Hi, I live on Earth. What planet do YOU live on, Prok?
Yeesh….Considering how many skins are out there that have some form of "damage" on them – I can think of several MAJOR skin stores just off the top of my head – what in particular crawled up Prok's butt to make him center on Gala? That she's the new 'in'? Makes me think that either 1) he ran out of material, so now he's just making it up as he goes along, or 2) he's got some sort of personal beef with Gala.
Did he not consider that some of those 'damage' skins are good for roleplay sims? I know that's why I picked up one from the Battle Royale set (and not to depict 'rape' or anything else sexual as Scylla Rhiadra assumes). I swear the logic process that derived "promoting battered women" from those skins is like starting with apples and getting orange juice.
mhm double standard indeed. Men walk around in bloodied, scarred and dirty skins all the time and no one makes a fuss.
Women do it and it's like "How dare you advocate for the abuse of women."
I say if you are gonna boycott Gala for doing this…dont do it half assed…boycott them ALL.
Put that in your moral peace pipe and smoke it!
Everybody wants to be SLs Ralph Nader or Gloria Allred. Not everything is due a boycott or protest.
"Gala’s stores include Curio, Luck Inc., and Alady."
wait, what?
Yeah, that's what I said.
That's what I said! Since when does Gala own Luck Inc.?
I guess I'm one of the few people who's just plain sick of reading about these skins. Yes, it's talented work, but people are blogging about them like they're the second coming of Christ or something.
I hate battered skins because they're just another example of how devolved we're becoming as a society: sitting on our asses in front of computers all day, pretending to beat the hell out of each other or at least looking like it. I choose not to wear them because they DO remind me of physical abuse. I can't imagine how anyone who's had the crap beaten out of her would find them appealing. BUT THAT'S JUST ME. I don't demand that everyone jump on that soapbox with me.
My stance on these types of situations is always if you don't like them, don't buy them. But I also have this wild fantasy of a day when bloggers will be able to express their opinions on . . . hell, anything without being verbally slaughtered.
Are we ever going to reach a point in Second Life where we can have an intellectual debate about something without name-slinging, calls for boycotting, screams of "EFF YOU!" and acting like a bunch of juveniles?
I guess that was a stupid question.
"My stance on these types of situations is always if you don't like them, don't buy them."
Emerald, I pretty much agree with what you say here . . . but . . . isn't what you describe above pretty much exactly what a boycott is?
No that's not what a boycott is. The definition of a boycott is To abstain from or act together in abstaining from using, buying, or dealing with as an expression of protest or disfavor or as a means of coercion.
You aren't saying, don't buy this skin line if you don't like it.
You are saying, don't buy anything from this designer until she meets my demands by removing this skin line.
Right. So people boycotting, say, Starbucks, simply abstain from buying one offending blend, but are perfectly ok if they substitute "Breakfast Blend" instead . . . Sorry, Beatrix, I've been involved in more than a few boycotts in my time, and that is NOT how they work.
And I have not in fact "demanded" that these skins be removed, as you know full well: I have asked that they be repackaged and marketed in such a way as to make it clear that they are not intended nor to be used for rape or abuse RP. I would love, frankly, to see the skins removed entirely, but (as, again, you know) my discussions with Gala have modified my original views on this.
I've never been in Starbucks and don't drink coffee so I don't know if Breakfast Blend is another type of coffee or just another Starbucks product. But if it's a Starbucks coffee then that's not what I meant at all.
Let me be really clear. Saying you don't like something and not buying it is not a boycott.
Saying, I oppose Starbucks corporate policies and I'm going to put financial pressure on them to change their policies by asking everyone to not spend their money until they met my demands is a boycott.
I also don't know how you can say you never demanded that the skins removed when that's exactly what your notecard said.
This is the quote from your notecard:
PLEASE BOYCOTT GALA PHOENIX PRODUCTS until this horrendous trivialization of violence against women is removed from sale. And please spread the word.
Removed from sale.
I'll repeat REMOVED FROM SALE. That was the original demand.
So either you didn't read the notecard or you didn't write or you just don't understand what you said.
Well, it's more like taking a personal stance, in my book. By choosing not to buy something because it conflicts with my beliefs, yes, I guess I am singularly boycotting something, so to speak, but when I hear the word "boycott" or a public call to boycott, I associate it with a mass protest organized in such a way as to make a negative impact on someone's business.
I also should have clarified with, "it's a matter of personal choice. I don't like violence, so I personally choose not to buy skins that depict violence — except ZOMBIE VIOLENCE! WOOT!" (sorry)
And my "if you (dear singular consumer) don't like these skins, don't buy them" statement is pretty much a given. People who don't like to look like they've had the crap beaten out of them — for whatever cause or reason — won't buy these skins anyway.
As to those who do buy them . . . well, they have their reasons, and I do believe that some of them buy them to make a "tough girl/strong woman" statement, and I do support that art form. The real men and women who are defending my country, for example, get pretty banged up and they're heroes in my eyes.
And if some people out there really are buying these skins out of some sick desire to turn abused women into a fashion statement, well, I have a rolodex of shrinks if anyone needs a referral.
Thanks for covering this so I could find out what the fuss was about, without give that blog any more traffic :p I love the idea of a tough scrappy girl skin, and they are all over the grid anyway. I'm thinking of buying one too.
I had an exchange with Scylla Rhiadra after I saw the notice for a boycott in a group, I tried to talk to her about. At one point she claimed that if Gala had clearly stated the intnetions of the skins there wouldn't be a call for a boycott (although I doubt this).
She was also upset by Gogo's description of the skins as being "bad ass" and "kick ass" and implying that those terms are meant to glorify violence against women.
Personally when I hear a woman (or women) described as kick ass or bad ass I think of a strong, confident woman who can take care of herself.
It's just so frustrating because neither seem to be organizing boycotts for actual SL business that promote rape and violence against women. I was profile snooping and found a guy's groups were all forced sex and rape oriented.
This woman doesn't sound very intelligent.
This woman doesn't sound very intelligent.. the Scylla one. Either it's lack of intelligence that's got her down or a very dark history.
To add to things, Gala isn't the first to offer skins that have been beat up and marred- a few months ago, Ashia Tomsen created a very edgy line, including a trashed fighter; before that lessthan3 offered a bruised male skin in a hunt for free; and even further back is Nomine's TORN series, which features a wide variety of 'torn up' make-ups and markings.
Yeah… this is only getting coverage because someone has selective attention (an possibly abusing the matter that – in addition to a myriad of others things – October is Domestic Violence Awareness month).
And now, I shall return to the Fashion Planet feed, perhaps to see more of these skins featured proudly.
I have a group gift skin from M&R Cupcakes from last Halloween that has a black eye and it rocks. The fact that this is an issue all of a sudden is just weird.
Ms. Rhiadra is a member of the Cupcakes group.
LOL!! So she is . . . although I haven't shopped there, I think, in ages. I'm not entirely sure I get your point here, but I'll have to check into the skin of which Sileny speaks.
Nothing like a bit of profile stalking, eh Beatrix?
I had to look at your profile when I went to IM you the first time.
I noticed you were a member of the Group. Profiles are there for people to look at and get more information about the person. If you don't want anyone to read your profile. Leave it blank and hide your groups.
Actually, I believe there was also an outcry about that skin too, group members calling for an alternate non-bruised version as they felt the skin depicted domestic violence. And I believe, after much unfair hounding and pounding by the few, a second non-bruised skin was sent out. I forget who the people leading the protest were though, but I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find out.
Who cares what that woman thinks. I’d normally say that people are entitled to their opinions, but when it comes to Prokofy Neva, there is really nothing else to do with them — that is, her opinions — than to dismiss them entirely. She is simply too absurd to even be dealt with.
If you choose otherwise, all you’ll get is frustrated and angry. There is no other possible outcome.
And why should Gala have to dumb down her product by adding a disclaimer because Scylla Rhiadra is convinced that they portray violence towards women? I have never purchased a skin in SL that contained a notecard that said "This skin may make you look like an adult film star plz do not get into porno rl kthxbai." or "this is a skin for a furry plz do not turn into a unicorn rl kthxbai" It's just in HER SL that women don't kick ass or act like badasses. It is sexism as its finest.
Please don't ruin my unicorn dream.
Pfft, you guys need to learn, this entire argument is based on people who do not know FACTS. One of the amusing aspects of it.
I love these skins…I have plans on picking them up soon. To me personally, I see strength. I see 'characters' that have had bad shit happen to them, and came through. And given that they're named after Battle Royale? It makes perfect sense. I love me some Takako.
…I wonder what these people would say if they say the Sezmra mods I did for my roleplay character..
http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Prokofy_Neva
'nuff said.
jesus, do you people not have anything better than to do? Let Gala play Mad Max and the Thunder Dome, and I'd rather watch Gossip Girl than read this garbage. Bad journalism..
Then go watch gossip girl and stop being a cunt, we already have enough of it.
I'll be buying at least one of these as soon as my balance allows (*shakes fist melodramatically at Gala* why do you have to be so good?) I have featured several "damaged" skins in the past but certainly NEVER as a victim. Give me a break. Why assume the woman didn't give as good as she got?
"Because people like Scylla Rhiadra assume only men can play “Boy games” like boxer or post-apocalyptic survivor or fireman or any other “stereotypical boy” role on Second Life. If a woman dons a skins with cuts and bruises she is representing “abuse chic” and violence at the hand of some man."
Well, see, here's the thing. According to the American Bar Association Commission on Domestic Violence, approximately 1.3 million American women are assaulted by an intimate partner — every year. Now, if I had the stat at hand, we could compare that with the number of women injured in boxing rings, martial arts matches, etc. Sadly, I don't, but I'm willing to bet that the number of THOSE doesn't even come close to matching instances of domestic abuse.
So, yeah, when one sees a woman bearing a black eye, abrasions, and other injuries of that sort, the odds are pretty darn good that she has been assaulted. You can conjecture pointlessly all you want about the activity that might, hypothetically, have resulted in the depicted injuries, but that would be meaningless: in PRACTICE, a skin like this signifies a woman who has had the shit kicked out of her by an intimate (generally male) partner.
Now, I personally couldn't care less whether you indulge in martial arts in RL, or in SL. Personally, I think that there is a bit more to feminism than allowing women to be co-opted by the culture of violence that men are themselves only now emerging from, but hey, that's just me. And, as I've said in a number of other places relating to the Gala skins issue, I'm actually just fine with these skins being used for such activities. If Gala says that that is what they were intended for, I'm quite willing to believe her.
My objection is to the fact that she has not made it absolutely clear that that IS what they represent. Not where they are for sale, and not in response to Juicy's blog review of them. Nor is any effort made to distance these from OTHER pretty similar skins for sale in SL that are VERY explicitly intended to depict women who have been battered or raped. Clearly, "Battle Royale" is a title that means something to many of you. Great. But let me assure you that the vast majority of SL residents would stare at you blankly if you alluded to the movie in question. So the name doesn't help much.
Really, then, this is the point of the boycott, for me personally, anyway. Gala needs to dissociate these skins from a culture that, in SL anyway, still thinks it's "fun" to RP kicking the crap out of a woman. I'd love to have these skins entirely removed, but, given her protestations of innocence, that is not now what I am asking (as I have made clear to her personally).
What I AM asking is that she make an unambiguous public statement (and not merely a quotation from a message sent to an obscurish fashion blog) that these skins do NOT represent, nor are meant to be used for simulations of, violence against women. Why not? Because accepting that such images as these are "ok" implicitly means an acceptance of the violence that lies behind them. They desensitize us to it. We should be shocked as HELL when we see a woman looking like this, but throw enough images like it at us, and it all becomes rather ho-hum, doesn't it? Given the carnage that is inflicted upon women in RL every year, that is NOT a message we need to send.
Gala has said here, and to me personally, that these skins were not intended to represent victims of abuse. So what is the problem with making this an explicit part of the marketing and packaging of these items? It would be a pretty courageous and laudable statement against the trivialization of violence against women.
And yes, Beatrix, if she does that, I will indeed call off the boycott. And thank and congratulate her personally for doing so.
I don't think Gala needs you to call off her boycott or congratulate her personally. Maybe if you were to actually do something PRODUCTIVE on SL, like have a fundraiser for Take Back the Night or something, she would give you a thumbs-up.
"in PRACTICE, a skin like this signifies a woman who has had the shit kicked out of her by an intimate (generally male) partner."
No it does NOT. Because Gala said it does NOT. You cannot continue to sit here saying over and over "The sky is green, the grass is blue" when it just ISN'T.
As a woman, you offend me.
The people who were going to buy the skins to begin with are still going to buy them anyway, and won't give a fat damn about your silly little boycott. Actually, with all this free publicity, Gala will probably increase her sales.
But, hey, self-important much? You believe – inaccurately – that these skins 'desensitize' us to violence against women, so everyone else should bow down to that belief and do what you want them to do? Good luck with that.
"My objection is to the fact that she has not made it absolutely clear that that IS what they represent."
Gala is not your bitch.
Should every other content creator run their items by you, in case you might find them offensive?
Shouldn't this woman be out protesting R rated movies and having book burnings?
yeah, but fire bad
hahahahahahhahahahahahah
The purpose of the skins was made clear by her use of the name Battle Royale – and before you rushed to call for a boycott, you should have researched the cultural reference to the movie. Then you would know that she made explicit that these are not battered woman skins, but the skins of warrior women.
Since you did not, then you should have stood down once the context was made clear. It does not reflect well on you that you persist after the context is made clear.
We must speak very slowly here. BATTLE Royale. NOT BATTERED Royale.
How does my 6 year old know the difference and not this lady?
"You can conjecture pointlessly all you want about the activity that might, hypothetically, have resulted in the depicted injuries, but that would be meaningless: in PRACTICE, a skin like this signifies a woman who has had the shit kicked out of her by an intimate (generally male) partner. "
You have no statistics to back this up. Therefore it is YOU who are guilty of conjecture. If I see a woman with an injury, I do NOT assume it is the result of domestic violence. 1.3 million American women may well be subject to assault by a partner every year – but how many suffer horseriding accidents, or are injured in vehicles, or just plain damn fall over (which I seem to do a lot!).
I realise you are a militant feminist (I've seen your posts on the official forum too), but we don't all see the world through eyes with your slant. For most of us, these are just pixel skins, not a trivialisation of anything, nor a representation of the subjugation of women – but if you're looking for a platform from which to advance your agenda, I guess they do as well as anything else.
"… how many suffer horseriding accidents, or are injured in vehicles, or just plain damn fall over."
These things happen a lot in SL, do they? Which are the sims devoted to these interesting applications of this new skin? Alongside the ones allowing you to RP being hit by a door in the eye, no doubt . . .
Designers in SL don't make damaged skins to represent the effects of common household accidents. They make them as accessories for combat or assault and abuse RP.
Or, as I am beginning to fear, as a kind of fashion statement. Which is really scary.
Scylla, I read a lot of ASSumptions in your statements. You ASSume that, despite a clear name "Battle Royale", the skins are about battered women. You ASSume that the content creator has to put forward some sort of disclaimer or clarification, as if you have the right to boss people around (btw, that's violence too and btw, who the fuck are you?). In the end, I just see an ASS: you.
From woman to woman: you really give a bad name to the just struggle of women empowerment and equality by trivializing such issues with a clear nu-story as this one and by persisting in wanting to be always fucking right. Shame on you.
Uhhhh . . . and you prefer to be "always fucking wrong"? Well, each to her own . . .
where have I said that? are you ASSuming, again?
Someone's mentioned Cupcakes made a skin with a blackened eye. Are you going to leave that group and boycott those skins?
ANYTHING in SL can be used to depict violence against women and it can be done without a bruised skin. You might as well just boycott all of SL. I could make a whole series of pictures using noob skins and plain clothes that depict violence against women .
And you know I really hate the brand of Feminism that says there's only 1 way to be a True Feminist and you either agree and are a True Feminist or you are anti woman. It's exactly like Fundamentalist Christians who claim they are True Christians and every one else is going to burn in hell.
Sorry, Beatrix, but you clearly don't know me very well. I am entirely willing to grant that there are many "feminisms," some of which would undoubtedly disagree with my stand. And that's entirely cool: we come closer to the "truth" through disagreement expressed and examined through civil discussion.
Where, anywhere, have I denounced someone else's form of feminism? Where have I actually accused someone of being "anti-woman"? I certain make no claim like that about Gala, nor do I believe it to be true.
If I really believed that I were infallible, I would be calling for a ban, rather than a boycott; in other words, for an imposed and enforced restriction from above, rather than, as is the case with a boycott, for a means of protest that enables everyone to express their view by either joining or not. Boycotts allow you to vote with your wallet: it is entirely your right to express your view by blowing your entire paycheque at Gala's, if that is what you want. I'm not trying to stop you.
Please give some thought to what I have ACTUALLY said before you start branding me as some kind dictatorial fanatic. I am exercising my right to express my opinion about something, and asking others who agree with me to join with me in making a statement about something we believe in. That's all.
My problem is you're calling for a boycott, not because of what the designer intended, but because of how someone *might* use her products.
You can't hold her responsible for that. Any more than if someone went and bought your books from your shop and make a picture of someone using the books in a violent manner.
Also there's the fact that you don't even have the right info about the stores she owns.
I can hold her responsible for not making it clearer that these skins are NOT fashion statements, and not for RPing abuse. I'm sorry, but I believe she needs to distance this product from other similar ones made for the rape RP market. I'm afraid that naming them after an obscure Japanese cult film doesn't cut it in that regard.
I would be most amused to see someone trying to use one my books in "a violent manner," btw . . . Assault by papercut, perhaps?
The info about the stores was indeed a slip . . . of the pen, more than anything: I used both search and a visit to ascertain that the other two stores carried Gala products. It hardly invalidates my argument, however.
Assault by book.
I read about an abuse survivor whose father used to beat her books to beat her.
Find it funny now?
sexist?
Quote of the day, "To me they speak of power and toughness and I find them a lot more aesthetically pleasing then the typical SL skins, which far too often depict some doe-eyed, bee-stung lipped, enhanced-cleavage porno star."
what?
Yanno, I've had a couple of black eyes in my time, I've had bruises, cuts, burns, scratches and abrasions – and not one of them was at the hands of a man. Most were due to encounters with doors, floors and walls, not to mention over-affectionate cats and dogs. To see these skins as in some way condoning domestic violence is ridiculous.
I think everyone is entitled to their opinion. Not everything is for everyone. Profsky shared her opinion. I think she goes a bit far. But personally I wouldn't wear these skins. They remind me of a time in life of which I wish to forget.
I think folks need to be a bit sensitive and realize that not everyone will see the same thing when they look at those skins. Not everyone will think they are gorgeous. To some will they will have a negative affect.
Does that mean that skins like that shouldn't be made? Of course not. If you wanna walk around the grind looking like your got your ass kicked you're entitled. Just like someone is entitled to look like "some doe-eyed, bee-stung lipped, enhanced-cleavage porno star."
I think everyone is entitled to their opinion. Not everything is for everyone. Profsky shared her opinion. I think she goes a bit far. But personally I wouldn't wear these skins. They remind me of a time in life of which I wish to forget.
I think folks need to be a bit sensitive and realize that not everyone will see the same thing when they look at those skins. Not everyone will think they are gorgeous. To some will they will have a negative affect.
Does that mean that skins like that shouldn't be made? Of course not. If you wanna walk around the grid looking like your got your ass kicked you're entitled. Just like someone is entitled to look like "some doe-eyed, bee-stung lipped, enhanced-cleavage porno star."
I agree with Polero.
See, I can't even believe Prok is still even in SL! I know the land market is turning crappy or has been and many people have gotten out. Why does she even stay? Her commentary can sometimes actually have some good stuff in it, the problem I see is she's tossed around so much batshit crazy that people don't pay attention when she's saying something important (and something that makes sense).
I *get* 100 percent what she's saying, but I disagree. I think that although I treat my avatar as an extension of Christine I do think people play act in SL and since they are supposed to be over 18 we are all adults and we can play act any way we want if someone chooses to do so.
I personally won't buy the skins, not because I think they condone violence, I just have a few battered skins already and I'd rather spend my money on a Gala skin I'm going to wear more often than during a "crackhead/hooker Kess" situation. And to Prok that's glorifying violence against women and that's her OPINION. To me, I think it's PLAY ACTING. There's the difference.
I guess it's an agree to disagree situation. *shrug*
is this Prok person famous or seomthing??
biggest troll on the grid. problem is, she doesnt do it for the lulz
Another thought I had is let's say that someone DID wanna use these skins for rape games or battered woman games? The people involved would have to consent to playing these games, because NO ONE can force a person to stay on SL, if something made someone uncomfortable they would just sign off. Why is it anyone's business? There is a ton of shit I find offensive on SL, kid avs, ad farms, blingtards, barnyard sims but I have NO right to go around telling people what the hell to do on SL. NO ONE DOES. What if it is theraputic for a raped woman to get her ya-yas out on SL this way? I have NO idea, no one does. But I do know if two consenting adults or twenty or whatever do this, and purchase the skins and use them in this way, it is NOT my biz. With all the awful shit going on RL today, with all the RL raped women and homeless people and war and abused children, to focus on something like this is insanity and so offensive to me. Please find me ONE person on SL who is being FORCED to wear these skins and being FORCED to playact some abusive relationship. Just one.
That's the thing, you and I see completely eye to eye here on this- but Prok doesn't. She, according to her blog post, feels that people consenting (two adults) to rape play or whatever the f people may possibly do with battered skins basically is the same as doing the actual violent crime- or rather it's on the level.
I've seen people talk about being raped on SL (I've TPed into some strange conversations) and I've always wanted to say, "HOW the HELL do you rape someone in SL? How do you kidnap and rape someone??? It's called LOGGING OFF and MUTE/BLOCK."
Oh well, I'm a firm believer in people doing whatever they please in a roleplaying situation in SL- that's their business. I don't do it, or there's a few things I don't personally like at all, but that's not my business.
Anywho, thanks for your thoughts and for writing this article, Gattina.
I look forward to your posts.
Oh speaking of protest *if you are truely protesting because if you are gonna do it…don't do it half assed* Cupcake just came out with some halloween skins and one has a black eye.
Now im not telling you what to do or anything but you might wanna get ahold of her and tell her to make sure she puts a notecard into her skins as well. Hmm, who else. Oh Tacky Star, that's all they make are scarred and bruised skins so you can contact them too.
You have your work cut out for you, I do not envy you that. There are A LOT of skin makers who have made or do make these types of skins. So make sure you keep your torch lit and grab a couple extra pitchforks too cause you're gonna be busy.
Curio is not the first, and won't be the last to make skins like these, I own similar skins, for 'criminal' or 'fighting' looks, it never occured to me that it somehow represented domestic abuse victims in the US.
I think it's important to invoke morality. You people aren't willing to be moral.
Look at yourselves:
"Chigusa spurns his advances and Niida threatens to rape her
It has NOTHING to do with the glorification of the abuse towards women, which has been suggested."
Er, contradiction much?
A girl wouldn't have to fight a would-be rapist if rape wasn't glorified.
This movie is NOT about fierce females triumphing. It's about sick and twisted evil triumphing and murdering innocent people.
I haven't called for a boycott. I have called for morality.
Stop saying it's a matter of morality when it's a matter of you misinterpreting something. You're so willfully insistent on something being what it was never intended to be, I really have to wonder what's going on in your head.
You should devote all this energy to a problem that ACTUALLY EXISTS. Raise awareness for violence against women and stop wasting your energy on a Second Life skin that has nothing to do with domestic violence.
You know what I haven't seen in this whole argument?
Anyone saying "It's okay to for men to beat women, it's no big deal"
Just saying. We're all pretty much on the same page here, apart from some little details about pixels.
Intentions aside, these skins are like a gun. If you want to use them to rp being someone who was in a motorcycle accident or a rape victim, it’s that users choice. Someone will do it for the lulz and some will wear them “respectfully” the whole argument is bs, because it’s how each person uses/wears them.
nobody complains about one "designer"'s "skins" that look like they are good for rp'ing on a spit roasting.
Oh, god. You people are sick. How you manipulate shit into making poor Gala into being this abuse advocate. Just because you aren't into the world of rape and murder, doesn't mean you can press it into people, especially not in SL. People like you, Prokofy, are so disgusting.
*looks at the horse and kicks it one more time*
you need to apply a bruised dead horse skin to that creature.
but then SL PETA will get on her ass
I think sometimes people forget we're on Second Life. If the skins remind you of domestic abuse then don't buy them. Just don't use that as an excuse to silence someone else. I had a sister who was abused by her husband and one of her last beatings ended with 18 stiches in her face. When I see the skins I don't see her face. All of this posturing and holier than thou attitudes are gross. If you're truly offended do something productive like actually help an abused woman in REAL LIFE!
Let's ask your sister what she thinks of these skins, and what she thinks of when she looks at them, and whether she thinks this is as fabulous as she does, shall we?
My sister probably wouldn't care. She doesn't have a problem watching action movies with women who are fighting. We've watched women boxing matches. Also she thinks SL is a joke. I think your soap box cause is a joke.
P.S. Why did you wait so long to respond to my comment? Did you assume that I wasn't going to see it??
Don't like it, don't buy it is indeed the best policy, and having creative freedom of expression means some people will create things you don't like.
Having said that, my guess is if you showed these skins to 100 random women and asked them what popped into their head as the cause of all that damage, the majority would guess domestic violence. If the creator didn't intend such associations, one would think it would be noted somewhere in the signage or packaging or something. Is she _required_ to do so, of course not, that's silly. But how one could make a set of skins like that and not realize how they may be perceived…
While I don't always agree with Prokofy's viewpoints, or with how they are expressed, in this case, I was glad to see it pointed out. If nothing else it's provoked a conversation about the topic and I choose to think that all of us talking about/thinking about the issues surrounding violence against women and how that might be portrayed in Second Life has been a good thing.
I'm glad content creators can make whatever they like, freedom of expression and all, but if something even LOOKS like it might be glorifying a horrendous practice, good people speak up and question it. Nothing wrong with that. Calling for a boycott before you've heard the answer, on the other hand, is in my mind far more censorial than what Prok posted, even if well intentioned.
When you see things you don't like, it's ok to ask questions and express your opinion. Just be sure to listen to the answers before deciding a course of action. For me, beat up skins on men OR women are yucky, but thankfully everyone's free to wear what they like.
Thanks, Fleep, for your insertion of a thoughtful response into what is fast becoming an acrimonious and very personal debate.
To answer one of your points, I can tell you that the call for a boycott was not taken lightly, nor without a great deal of discussion before hand: this debate had been raging for some time on Prok's blog before I decided to issue the call. I'm not sure how much discussion you think is needed before such a call is issued, but I think there had been something like 80 posts, including some by some fairly respected and well-known figures in the SL community, before I decided to go ahead with this. I have also spoken to Gala personally; while that conversation did persuade me that she did not intend these skins to be read the way they clearly have (and NOT just by Prok and me), her response was, for me, inadequate in terms of her unwillingness to take steps to further distance these skins from the market for "abuse chic" and representations of violence against women.
You say "Don't like it, don't buy it is indeed the best policy": I don't disagree. To reiterate something I've said here before, that is what a boycott IS. It doesn't attempt to impose a "solution" from above, as an abuse report or a call for a ban would: it asks everyone to carefully consider their own position on the issue, and vote with their money. It doesn't infringe upon the rights of others to continue to patronize Gala, nor indeed does it prevent them buying these skins. And, because a boycott asks that everyone examine her or his own conscience before responding, it respects the rights of the individual, AND provokes public debate. In the latter regard, I would submit, it has succeeded.
Frankly, if there is a more benign, passive, and democratic form of protest, not to mention one more appropriate to the free-wheeling Free Market ethos that powers SL, I'd love to hear about it.
"including some by some fairly respected and well-known figures in the SL community, "
OH so the sl-celebrities are behind you? LMAO.
" If the creator didn't intend such associations, one would think it would be noted somewhere in the signage or packaging or something."
You're right! Most people WOULD assume the skin means domestic abuse. I mean it's not like she mentions fighting….or should I say "battling" in the skin's title, does sh- Oh….Oh wait. Hold on a moment.
I don't see how anyone can see these skins as beautiful!! Ugh!
Jesus people, THESE SKINS AREN'T REAL! They are part of a computer game and you are blowing it WAAAY out of proportion. I appreciate these skins, for one, they are very well made and something that I could never accomplish myself. Gala is an amazing skin creator and if one chooses to walk around the virtual lands of SL with cuts and bruises and blood running from their eyes, then so be it! That in no way means they are supporting or even glorifying the act of abusing/raping women. It's a form of expression, yes, but like any other. If I like how it looks with half my head shaved then I'm gonna wear half my head shaved. If I like how I look with two black eyes, then I'm going to wear two black eyes, simply because it's so easily done in Second Life.
Now Prof, Scylla, and anyone else who shares their opinions, I'm not saying any of you are wrong in what you think and believe, but that's what YOU think and believe not what Gala thinks and believes so WHY should she take the time to send out/post notices stating YOUR opinion. If you don't like the fact that she doesn't have anything posted stating what YOU want her to say, then don't buy her products. Easy.
Lastly, let's pretend this was REAL. Think of every costume shop in your town. Costume shops that sell those little packages of fake blood, fake gashes and cuts and stitches, paint to give yourself blackeyes. Do you think on every one of those packages theres a notices that states: "THESE PRODUCTS ARE NOT MEANT FOR YOU TO LOOK LIKE YOU ARE A WOMAN WHO HAS JUST BEEN SEVERELY BEATEN AND RAPED BY YOUR LOVER!! PLZ DO NOT GO OUT AND REALLY GET BLACKEYES OR BRUISES OR CUTS, KTHX!!!" Or how about those little bubblegum machines that give out the fake tattoos of scars and cuts and stitches, do they have a notice posted on the front of those?!?! I don't think so… So are you going to gather infront of these stores and boycott their businesses until they remove these products or post a notice?!?! I don't think so…. So why are you doing it in this FAKE world of Second Life?
Yeah, that's all I got. You all are just being ridiculous.
The erosion of the spirit and the soul that take place by condoning even pixelated violence is very real, and its effects very apaprent.
These aren't Halloween costumes; these are "battered-wife chic". We all get that, and those that aren't beaten by the violence of SL itself discouraging people from saying what they really feel and know all know that.
Gala wants to be cool and sell skins *shrugs*. She's no moral barometer for me. She isn't alone in this, and she just happened to be visible. It's not about her; it's about celebrating violence and being UNABLE to condemn it, as you are UNABLE to condemn it because you've become DESENSITIZED. That's important to keep pointing out.
Oh Prokofy… I have not become desensitized and neither have many of these other people leaving comments supporting Gala's skins. I don't agree with the name calling because yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but most of us are just standing up for the way WE see it… just like you. I personally KNOW that spousal abuse is wrong and should not be supported or glorified…. Wait wait.. KEYWORD!! Did you read that? "SPOUSAL ABUSE" Now Prokofy, can you honestly sit there and say that if Gala decided to erase the boobs and makeup from these skins and add in some shading of a sixpack that you all would still continue with this boycott and getting your panties in a twist? No. You wouldn't.
Yes yes, I know that statistically, woman are at a higher percentage of being abused, but in several cases there are husbands, boyfriends, men in general that get physically or even emotionally abused. Shit, have you ever seen the show "Snapped" 98% of the stories on that show are about WOMEN who abused and murdered their boyfriends/husbands. It's NOT right for it to happen to ANYONE, yet there's no boycotts over SL men skins that are cut up and bruised, is there? And plz do not use the excuse that Gala is being boycotted against basically because she is visible, BULLSHIT. If that's the case, you all are a poor excuse of protestors. Get your shit together and make a real difference.
I support you 100% in saying spousal abuse is wrong, but I DO NOT support the fact that you are singling out ONE designer out of countless ones for making a few bloody pixel skins.
"these are "battered-wife chic"" — I'm sorry you are only capable of seeing women as fragile helpless beings that can't defend themselves. Who automatically assumes that a woman with a bloody nose, black eye, etc.. is trapped in some horrible marriage where her husband beats her bloody. Who can only see the worst in things. In RL, 80% of my friends are boys, and we used to play football every sunday. Full on tackle football, and one Sunday I happened to get elbowed in the face and got a black eye. I'd be quite offended if you assumed I was being beaten by my boyfriend or husband. Just as if I were Gala, I'd be quite offended that you are assuming that the time and effort spent on these awesome skins were made to represent a battered/abused wife.
You know whats funny, Prokofy? You and Scylla are the only ones so far that have really opened your mouths about this subject on this blog. Now, this being such a touchy subject and a GREAT issue to support and fight against, people should not be able to be discouraged to speak their opinions, and I don't think they are. Your fight against spousal abuse as a whole, I think we'd all happy stand behind you. It's just… no one really shares your foolish assumption regarding the Gala Battle Royale skin line.
This argument reminds me of the av I saw for sale a while back. It makes you appear to have just stumps for arms and legs, all bound up in latex, and with a weird sort of dental thing to keep the mouth open wide. Now THAT is messed up. This skin? It's just a skin released around Halloween time. There are things far worse than this around all year long since as long as I have been on SL. Things that ARE made to replicate violence against women (and men too sometimes) and clearly state that is what they are for. Only reason people are getting all up in Gala's face is because she's "famous" in SL and someone wants their point to be heard loud and clear by as many people as possible.
Rape and abuse is okay in Second Life because it is not real.
I hope that is some form of sarcasm??
Sadly, I suspect not. It is precisely this kind of attitude that makes actions against skins like this necessary. Even if "Man in a Skirt" is being sarcastic, I can assure you that I have spoken to many in SL who would happily say the same thing with an entirely straight face.
Pixels have feelings…this is serious business.
Yes, they do (lol). Once again, this argument is all about me.
Yes, they do (lol). Once again, this argument is all about me.
LIVE YOUR FANTASIES PPL!!!! LIFE IS TOO SHORT!
Let Scylla Rhiadra boycott anything she wants to in the virtual world of Second Life. That's a good hobby for an armchair feminist to have. The real feminists I know, the ones who live in the real world, raise money for battered women's shelters and volunteer to work with abused children.
But to be fair, the "great" Scylla Rhiadra should really put her foot down and go after ALL the designers who have EVER created a female skin with the tiniest scratch/scar/or bruise on it…
Why just this ONE designer?
You mean why not the people who create skins that show women as slabs of meat ready to be butchered or the ones where the groin area is covered in dripping blood or the ones that show breasts sliced off? Because that would be too logical Sars, going after something that is blatantly showing abuse. It is far too easy for her to go after Gala even AFTER Gala herself has explained what the skins mean.
I actually own the Movie Battle Royale…Had to buy it from a canadian source since it is banned in the US….Just don't bother with Battle Royale 2
…
And there is nothing wrong with a little violence. Women can do whatever they want..and if they feel the need to be beaten or raped then so be it. Its a fucking skin get over it.
Can we just all agree that Prok is a moron?
Let's do something about domestic violence instead of boycotting and arguing: http://netherworldsl.blogspot.com/2009/10/combat-...
I just don't get it. I don't understand what you are trying to accomplish by boycotting and adding the extra drama and headache to Gala and SL as a whole, you're not really accomplishing anything except for annoying a lot of people. If you really wanted to boycott this issue, like I said before, you would go for EVERYONE who makes products similar to this.
My bestfriend likes to play SL sometimes while looking like she's had the shit kicked out of her, she wears more than just a skin. How about the foot cast and crutches from Cluster? or that little purple prim that you wear under your eye to resemble a black eye, or how about that little nose bandaid that you can buy with the bloody tissue hanging from your nose. Why not boycott those stores too?
By just boycotting Gala you're making it look like you have some personal vendetta against her and personally, I think you're making yourself look like an idiot. If you're just trying to make yourself feel better, feel like you're doing the right thing. Then do it silently for all of us. Don't buy the skins. Don't preach and try to convince people not to buy Gala's products.
*continued*
If you do actually want to make a CHANGE for the better and really get your point across, take Gattina's advice and have fundraisers to raise money to help support charities fighting against this issue RL. Don't just bitch about it, in a fake world nonetheless. If you have so many "SLebrities" standing behind you on your opinions, I'm sure you'd be able to do LOTS of good and earn LOTS of respect. Until then, stfu.
Sorry, I had a lot to say. This is the last comment from me. Again, I just think you're being ridiculous.
With respect, Sars, you don't have the faintest idea of the variety of ways in which I express my activism and engagement with these issues, in-world or in RL.
Do you REALLY suppose that i turn my feminism on and off as I log in and out? My feminism, and that of those with whom I work in SL, isn't "role play": it's a deeply felt engagement with these issues that drives what I do in RL every bit as much as it does in-world, thank you very much. The same can be said, if not more so, of other members of the feminist groups with whom I associate here in SL: they include counsellors for abused women, educators and political activists, and, yes, fundraisers for women's shelters and organizations. You may "play" at what you do in SL, but I can tell you that, when it comes to our feminist principles, WE do not: our work here is paralleled by our efforts in RL.
As for the relevance of what we do in SL, the notion that VWs are somehow entirely separate and detached from RL is nonsense: what happens in-world here is every bit as much a part of RL culture as anything found on the Web, in print, or on movie screens and TVs. It's all a part of a pervasive culture that continues, in many ways and many venues, to trivialize the horrendous consequences of violence against women in RL. So, while I entirely agree that things like fundraisers in-world can potentially make a wonderful contribution to alleviating the plight of real women, I make absolutely no apologies for the other forms of activism with which I am engaged within SL.
Prok is a moron.
blah blah blah and then blah blah blah. she's a lefty activist. enough said.
Well, actually, Paola, not everyone sees "lefty activist" as a term of abuse.
More to the point, I reject your implication that the issue of domestic abuse is of interest only to the Left. It should be, and actually IS, an important concern of women and men of all political stripes.
Interestingly, too, there is an increasing call within feminism itself to move away from thinking of domestic abuse as solely a "woman's issue." There are a number of reasons for wanting to do this. To begin with, it is certainly true that men are also victims, albeit in smaller numbers and generally to a less severe degree. Most importantly, however, domestic abuse has an enormous and horrific impact that extends far beyond the immediate victim. It impacts in severe ways upon children (who will, of course, become adults themselves, and must continue to deal with the past trauma), and, yes, upon the abuser himself. Our society as a whole pays an enormous cost because of this terrible blight.
Your interpretation of these skins is precisely that, your interpretation. This type of skin has been in SL for years, yet now Gala gets 'boycotted'?
I see these skins and I see fighting skins, not victim skins.
It doesnt matter if you do 'fight the cause' in RL or not, because with all due respect you are an anonymous internet person and could say pretty much anything to prove your point right now. I think actual womens groups and charities are far too busy with actual RL domestic abuse victims, and educational efforts about domestic abuse than worry about pixel skins and pixel females dressing up in the way they choose.
In fact, you are probably doing their cause and fight harm by flipping out about some cuts and bruises on skins.
People who have nothing intelligent to contribute to a conversation are the ones who resort to name calling and personal insults, and I think this thread is a good example.
You had a skin designer put out a product that seemed, at first glance, to potentially be glorifying something that most people find horrific. She didn't put any disclaimers or other information about her product out there so that consumers would know her intent was otherwise, or express any desire for her products NOT to be used for such purposes, she just put these beat up women skins out there.
Someone else said, hey! What's the deal here? Violence against women is NOT beautiful, it's NOT trivial, and it's NOT something we should be celebrating. Someone else said, I agree, and I want to boycott this creator and invite others who feel like me to do the same.
ALL of those acts are perfectly within the bounds of civil discourse and civil behavior. The skin creator is free to make what she wants, what she likes, and what she wants to put out to the public. She's free to disclose or not what her intentions are. That's certainly her choice. Likewise, those who called her intentions into question, who called for the boycott, they also are free to and SHOULD be able to voice their concerns and express their viewpoints. That's what a free society is all about.
Flogging on those who care about the issue of domestic violence, calling them stupid or morons or dismissing them as "lefty activists", on the other hand, is a pretty sad statement on the maturity level of Shopping Cart Disco readers. If you disagree with Scylla or Prokofy, by all means, tell us why. But posting how stupid they are over and over and over does nothing to advance your argument. If anything it shows how unoriginal you are in framing your own input to the debate.
I guess I was expecting something different from the SCD crowd. Here you have this great topic with all sorts of interesting avenues for discussion, and instead the conversation is largely derailed by people more interested in lobbing insults than anything else.
How disappointing. And I'm sure it won't take too long for one of those people to tell me to not let the door hit me on the way out, because those kind of people aren't ever really interested in building community or sharing experience or figuring out good approaches to complex issues. Which is a shame, IMO, and a missed opportunity for all the readers who were drawn to this site for the first time as a result of the controversy.
This is NOT how it went down at all.
Someone said hey violence against women is not beautiful, and you are as bad as a child molester! The skin designer said hey this is not what my skins mean! Someone else said hey yes, that is what they mean! and someone else said no, actually it is not what they mean! and then a boycott was called and someone else said hey skin designer, I know more about what your intent was then you do!
And we are not too busy lobbing insults, for the most part we are asking designers we know to contribute to Isabelas charity fundraiser for abused women. I know this is a super radical idea and all, but some of us actually believe in taking actions that helps people. I'm not sure boycotting a skin on a video game is gonna make any woman rl afford baby formula after she leaves her abusive partner.
You, dear sir, are an idiot. On one hand you call for free society and on the other, you condemn those those who defend freedom of expression.
You are an idiot. Enough said.
I don't understand the 'issue' you are flogging, just because a few people have misinterpreted a product doesn't mean everyone should fall into line – These skins have nothing to do with domestic violence, these skins fall into the'fantasy' skins genre.
I completely agree with this. Good post!
you are damn right. and i do apologize for the name calling. that's it, my bad, unreservedly.
i was going to write something about debating. but really, when Scylla invokes a boycott until she gets her way is not debating, it's dictating. i have no time for dictators, let alone for those making such a fuss assuming that something, that is clearly branded as battle royale, could be used to represent battered women. attacking, as others have pointed out, a single designer. i call this a biased agenda driven by a political ideology aimed at rising your own profile, more than rising awareness about the issue. you may take pride in being biased, i pity that. trivializing important issues, this is what this activism and stubborness against a single designer has achieved so far. on the ugly side, it rises questions of policing and controlling all content creation in SL. where to stop with disclaimers? who will be enforcing them? do we really want SL to become a health and safety quagmire? if you are not demanding that all content is vetted, why single out Gala? or is this a first step? if so, why hide your agenda of having SL heavily regulated? would Gala's disclaimer satisfy, as she says, Scylla? if so, then it's just Scylla against Gala, and violence against women is just a pretext. and this trivializes the important issue of violence. i can understand that crusades have to start somewhere. but i don't like crusaders as i don't like dictators or fundamentalist of any sort who want to impose unto others their peculiar, ideological, biased demands and assumptions.
that's it, i've just contraddicted myself about not writing oO.
"Having said that, my guess is if you showed these skins to 100 random women and asked them what popped into their head as the cause of all that damage, the majority would guess domestic violence."
Actually, my first thought was "Awesome, I can have a Roller Derby skin now!"
I'm currently sporting quite a few bruises that were inflicted by other women in the sport.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but having been a victim of horrific domestic abuse, shame on anyone who tells me that a bruise on a virtual woman advocates abuse.
I refuse to see pain and heartache in benign things – that gives power to the abuser.
I will, instead, empower myself by associating those bruises scrapes and cuts, with a Halloween costume, or an all women's sport like Roller Derby.
This is the smartest comment I've read in the ENTIRE debate.
Prok and those who agree with (and worship) her, need to get out more, and get off their high horses. Maybe get a job or something and learn about the ways of the world.
Are you being deliberately obtuse for effect, or.. ?
Battle Royale as a name does not imply in anyway that it was or was not a domestic abuse battle, just that there WAS a battle, and clearly one in which the woman was injured.
I didn't say that I "never" demanded they be removed. "Never" is your word, not mine. I also quite explicitly say, in my reply above, that "my discussions with Gala have modified my original views on this."
I'm afraid I'm unclear on what point you are trying to make with regard to this boycott. I am boycotting Gala's product line because I want HER, the creator of these, to remarket the product. The action is directed not merely against the skin, because the intent is to convince her to do something about this. Therefore her entire line of products is being boycotted.
Of course, anyone has the right to choose how they want to apply this: it's not as though I am enforcing "rules" about the conduct of people who may choose to join this protest..
First, I know what you are doing is a boycott.
I was trying to explain how the action Emerald described was not a boycott.
And in your original notecard you demanded or "requested" that the skins be removed from sale.
The fact that you modified your views does not change your original request.
And see, I'd say that's you being deliberately obtuse. Battling doesn't have the connotation of someone lying there taking a beating. It denotes that it's a fight between equals. And other than the skins being female, there's nothing to suggest that the other party is male or that it's a fight involving a spouse. That's what you're inserting in there.
And I'll say….If you, or Prok, or Scylla or hell, anyone else ever got off your duffs and ran an event dedicated to raising money for the beliefs you feel free to raise as a flag for this "boycott", I'd come and I'd gladly contribute. Most of the people in this entire thread, the ones protesting you going after Gala, I am pretty certain would contribute. It's something we can all get behind. The people speaking against you all seem to agree that it's a worthwhile cause, but that you're going about it in an incredibly ineffective way.
I think the whole boycott aspect has seriously misfired, by spouting off without knowing the facts and blasting everyone who disagrees in a condescending manner Syclla has shot herself in the foot. Just because we don't see domestic abuse but Battle (it's in the name too) doesn't mean we support RL domestic abuse and its ridiculous to label it as such.
The fact that you saw these skins and screamed ABUSE!!! is your issue, not everyone sees things the same way, you didn't even check out the name did you?
For the record, I am as lefty as they come, socialist to the core
Scylla Rhiadra AND Prokofy Neva (neither of which I had issues with before now) are both idiots. I love Gala. I haven't bought the skins yet but I think I'll buy the fat pack in a bit and send her a little note at the same time just to take my stand on it. I probably would have purchased anyway eventually, but I think this is the push I need.
Can we all boycott the idiots from SL? It would make for a much better life in Second Life if you ask me!
When the need to be "right" becomes more important to people than the actual issue, the issue becomes nothing more than a self-promotional tool, for those given to such diversions. This issue stopped being about morals the moment Scylla had to amend her boycott demand because she knew she had lost the argument about how the skins are marketed (when people refused to allow her to continue to gloss over the name of the skin line). So she then back peddled a bit and lowered the demand to just a disclaimer. Which just seems like more intellectual dishonesty disguised as a do-gooder's actions.
I thought we already lived through this sort of false association bullshit in the 70s and 80s with tabletop RPGs and heavy metal music "causing people" to do bad things?
These sort of skins have been around for years, yet Prokofy never uttered a word about them… I have a feeling that I know what this is really about. As is all too common with The Big Mouth, it maybe a guilt by association thing. Porkfly LOVES to find out who is friends with who by trolling peoples' profiles and their groups… and that's all I will say about that because in case I am wrong, I don't want to give the stubbirn old fool any ammo.
Scylla – people who think that they should be able to force their personal brand of morality upon others are themselves morally bankrupt.
Go ahead and reply but I won't be wasting my time reading anymore of your self-important nonsense.
We need honest advocates as women – not those who would tilt at windmills.
brava! :*
Excuse me, but did you even read what I wrote? I condemn _the behavior_ of those who are rude and personally insulting in what could otherwise be an interesting conversation. So, I am condemning your behavior, not you – I don't know you – and as I have stated many times, I also was defending the skin creator's right to express herself.
I don't know if you're an idiot, but I certainly think you're foolish. Spitting out rude insults to anyone who disagrees with you, or anyone who points out that you're behaving that way, shows that you have little interest in the actual matter that brought people to the conversation.
I LOVE Prok, at least he is consistent and stands by his convictions no matter what.
I tend to associate BDSM with a form of violence, but I admit I’m ignorant, I really don’t understand it. That’s because I personally I see it as degrading and humiliating, a bit sick really, but each to their own.
Having said that, I don’t have anything against the skins at all. I am sometimes Neko and I’d use them to depict a battle, not violence against women. They represent strength to me.
But I still love Prok!
Don't confuse the bastardisation of BDSM that is SL BDSM, which is a combination of Gor/internet myths/the beauty books and other bollocks
Back to the skins…….
Oh and PS, this creator should be kissing Prok’s ass, look at all the sales Prok has generated.
You jumped to an ugly, unsupportable conclusion and are somehow still expecting to be taken seriously.
Gala doesn't owe you anything.
Nope, she owes me, personally, nothing. But that's not what this is about.
I'd still have probably urged a boycott even had I known her putative "intentions" to begin with. What is objectionable about the skins has little to do with why she made them, and everything to do with how they are marketed and seen by others. What makes it even more objectionable is her note cited here that makes it quite clear that, whatever her intentions, she's entirely happy to sell these to people who WILL use them to depict violence against women. It's a bland disavowal, and a quick wink in the direction of RPers.
As for my conclusion, it isn't half as ugly as a skin depicting a woman who's had the crap kicked out of her. Sorry Ann, but I'm unrepentant.
I find it bizarre that you would be wasting your time on this considering Gala has all ready explained this to you and also, these are skins on a video game.
What skin do YOU wear? I'm gonna hold a boycott against the artist who created your skin because you look like a bimbo and I want a written release saying the skins are not to be used for women to look like bimbos.
And then I'm gonna boycott you for wasting your time boycotting a skin designer on SL when there are actual women being beaten in RL and you are too busy whining on the internets to go volunteer somewhere.
Gattina, you know absolutely NOTHING about the extent of my activism on this issue in RL, or even, I suspect, in SL for that matter. Nor am I going to start producing testimonials or RL info about myself in order to justify myself to you. Suffice it to say that I don't turn my feminist activism on and off whenever I log in and out of SL.
In any case, Kimberly Rufer-Bach already responded to this same criticism from you on Prok's blog far more eloquently than I could do: I would suggest that you read her response and maybe actually digest it this time.
Why don't you restrict your comments to things about which you might actually conceivably have some information, instead of criticizing me personally on matters about which you know exactly zilch?
"Why don't you restrict your comments to things about which you might actually conceivably have some information, instead of criticizing me personally on matters about which you know exactly zilch?"
This, coming from you, is hilarious.
You claim to know Gala's intentions when she made the skins, to glorify and sexualize battered women, and you call a boycott for them. Even after she told you herself this was never her intention, and here you sit accusing me of not having information? Lulz and lulz.
can anyone say 'bat shit insane'?
No Scylla, you jumped the gun and shot your mouth off without all the facts, where on earth does BDSM = Domestic Violence?
Just because you were ignorant of Battle Royale, and didn't even bother googling it before you started you call for a boycott doesn't mean Gala should do anything to justify herself
I don't think that BDSM does equal domestic violence, nor have I once in this exchange suggested such, nor so much as used the term "BDSM." Personally, I am quite willing to accept that true BDSM is about an exchange of power, and need have nothing to do with violence at all; I would suggest that you read the first few posts of this thread if you are unclear on this distinction.
It is, in fact, Gala herself who makes the connection between BDSM and violence:
"The skins weren’t meant to depict violence towards women at the hands of men. Of course a few people will interpret it that way and I’m aware that residents of the BDSM community might purchase them with this interpretation in mind."
Interesting, eh?
bat shit insane
It is really interesting that the wannabe feminist Scylla is the one who first thinks about victims when she sees these skins. I'd call myself a feminist and I see fighters. These scars aren't the evidence for domestic abuse, for weakness or defeat but they evidence tough battles won. At least that is how I RP in SL…
Oh yes, I know your take on RP; Scylla. Sooner or later people take their violent fantasies to real life, they can't tell right from wrong anymore or fantasy from reality. Which is – and I really don't care about your studies and surveys but only about the people who RP with me and who I have know for almost twenty years in RL – complete bull shit.
So when I have done my job as a more or less successful but self-employed and hard-working businesswoman, I've talked with my husband about how our days were, I have made dinner, taken out the trash and checked the mail, I go kickboxing.
And as soon as I am back home I log on to SL, wear such a skin and beat and shoot the hell out of my friends who RP with me. And after a few hours of kicking and shooting and stabbing each other, I log off and fall asleep next to my husband. My stress is gone, my tension, my aggressions. What a perfect end for an ordinary life.
How about your life? Is it actually that balanced? Seeing the number of blogs you follow, entries you make and the like, you seem like Prokofy, an old cat lady who's a bit lonely and very frustrated. For Prok it's always about the money, for you it's always about women's rights. Let me tell you one thing: I am a woman and I don't need someone like you to fight for my rights. Seriously, you're trying to kill my fun in SL just because you don't have any either? How pathetic…
And please stop roleplaying as a feminist… no one believes you anyways.
And the skins are dropdead gorgeous btw!
Your impassioned defence of kickboxing is interesting, Bunny, but I'm not sure why you think it is relevant. I've stated explicitly above, and elsewhere, that I am personally fine with these skins being used for role playing combat or martial arts. In fact, what I've asked of Gala is that she make it explicit that this is the ONLY use that she sanctions for these skins. My objections have, from the first, been to the fact that she does NOT make it clear in her marketing that these skins are not meant to represent or be used for RPing sexual assault or domestic abuse. Her response to SCD seems, unfortunately, to suggest that she is actually quite ok with such uses.
As for kickboxing, in RL or SL . . . well, great! Go for it. i'm sure it is terrific exercise. I'm also delighted to hear about your business and your full lifestyle.
As for your speculations about MY life: these aren't worth the thirty or so seconds it would require to respond to them.
Scylla, you need to go out and experience the world AS a woman. The impression you give us of you is cold, logical and methodical, very unfeminine. If you spoke from your heart more rather than your mind, we might be more convinced that your convictions were genuine. Other than that, I feel that you just want to WIN this.
I don't think anyone ever "wins" this kind of discussion. I don't have any illusions that those who have been criticizing my stand here are suddenly going to throw up their arms and announce in a loud voice that they have "seen the light." That's not the point of this exercise, in any case. It's about — or at least, it SHOULD be about — discussing important issues, airing ideas, and, indeed, "education." And that goes for both sides: I have learned a great deal from those who have taken alternative points of view in discussions like this.
So, while I can't speak for everyone who is involved in this exchange, I can tell you that my motivation, and indeed the principle motivation of the boycott itself, is to highlight certain issues and ideas, and generate some discussion around them. I believe that using, or condoning the use of skins such as these to represent sexual assault or domestic abuse trivializes a particularly horrendous part of our RL culture: it turns real abuse into a "game.". I think further that it desensitizes us to the battered woman, and in that sense contributes to the RL abuse of women, in exactly the same way that such images in mainstream culture do.
Why do we flip out over racist depictions here and in the media? Would we feel it was "ok" to RP the Holocaust, or racist lynch mobs? Are most people tolerant of sexualized ageplay in SL, even when we know it doesn't involve real children? I think not, yet there is this astonishing acceptance that depictions of violence against women are somehow "ok." And if even one person reads this exchange, and thinks "You know, that is possibly true," then I have achieved something here.
As for any "impression" I give you, I probably "seem" logical and methodical because that is the best way to get my message across; it doesn't mean I am not speaking "from my heart." You seem to be implying that these are not "natural" modes for women: that I should sound more emotional because that is somehow more "feminine." I'd like to think that "logic" AND "passion" or emotion are the property of BOTH genders. Speaking here, I use logic because I am trying to communicate ideas. But in other venues and forums, my voice can be quite different. It depends on what I am trying to communicate.
Hey! Thanks for showing these skins. I wouldn’t have really even considered buying them if it weren’t for all the stink raised by Prok and scylia about them! But their call for a boycott on them only made me want to buy them more! Thanks guys! These skins look wonderful with my grunge and cyberpunk, post apoc outfits. Awesome skins!