[please refer to post 50 for actual name of clothing "dupetta" and my reply to it]
watching psx this weekend, the reveal for the uncharted game had me hooked, constantly jumping from going thats lara to wait no thats not her for it to be finally revealed as a game in the uncharted series.
i make this thread to say I think Naughty Dog might not understand how it may have inadvertently confirmed quite harmful stereotypes that has actively isolated members of society like me.
the use of hijab/niqab, the headscarf and face veil, for the purpose for this trailer was to disguise, distract and deceive as she attempted to infiltrate a building that was under the guard of the state. it was precisely used in the way the general populace of europe and its governments suspect muslims of potentially using it for. NDs use of it in its reveal was precisely confirming that its quite reasonable to be suspicious.
its didnt seem intentional, at least i hope it wasnt. just that something that some women choose to wear out of devotion/piety was used as a throwaway disguise in a game for what the authorities in that game would have described as an act of terrorism.
i dont think asking about if i had issues with similar articles of religious clothing being used in games when theyve not really been the subject of intense scrutiny like us muslims have been under and continue to be under. nuns were not forced to be disrobed.
maybe one day gaming will be more conscious of our sensitivities.
Last edited by Heavy's Sandvich; Yesterday at 01:03 PM.
.
So, what exactly should she have worn to infiltrate an armed military blockade/curfew? Also, whether you like it or not terrorists have repeatedly used hijabs/niqab's to carry out terrorist attacks.
to be fair, don't terrorists use women in full body clothes as suicide bombers in places like pakistan and afghanistan?
It's a hijab worn in an Indian city . Muslims form a significant part of our population and if you go to heavily muslim dominated areas it's perfectly normal to see a woman in a hijab . So she could be blending in with her fellow city dwellers ... Think this is making something out of nothing.
Edit: as some have pointed out it's actually a dupatta ... Worn over a salwaar kameez . This is obvious in later sections when she's fighting etc . Its a very normal garb to wear in India . And It's not even religious .
Edit: as some have pointed out it's actually a dupatta ... Worn over a salwaar kameez . This is obvious in later sections when she's fighting etc . Its a very normal garb to wear in India . And It's not even religious .
Last edited by Ishan; Yesterday at 04:28 PM.
pretty much took the words out of my mouthIt's a hijab worn in an Indian city . Muslims form a significant part of our population and if you go to heavily muslim dominated areas it's perfectly normal to see a woman in a hijab . So she could be blending in with her fellow city dwellers ... Think is making something out of nothing l
Wasn't that just so she could mingle with the local crowd? That's how I interpreted it, at least.
I get your concern OP, pay no attention to the people dismissing your concerns.
I don't think ND did it to purposefully demean your religious article of clothing, but its easy and more realistic to run around in a hijab in a middle eastern country while staying under cover.
I think that the function of the outfit serves the purpose enough to not have people second guess what the Hijab is actually for.
I don't think ND did it to purposefully demean your religious article of clothing, but its easy and more realistic to run around in a hijab in a middle eastern country while staying under cover.
I think that the function of the outfit serves the purpose enough to not have people second guess what the Hijab is actually for.
It's a garment that almost covers you completely, so doesn't it make sense that it could also be used as disguise? Should we pretend it could not?
Catgirls in skimpy clothes aren't sexual, it's their made up MMO culture
(Yesterday, 11:06 AM)
This was my exact thinking. Her disguise made complete and total sense for where she was and what she was trying to do.It's a hijab worn in an Indian city . Muslims form a significant part of our population and if you go to heavily muslim dominated areas it's perfectly normal to see a woman in a hijab . So she could be blending in with her fellow city dwellers ... Think is making something out of nothing l
I took it more as her using it to blend in, than solely to sneak past the armed forces. She wouldn't get far if she was just walking round in her usually very sexy clothing in a war-torn area in the middle east, so I think her costume makes sense, given the circumstances.
Last edited by Floody; Yesterday at 11:32 AM.
India is not the Middle East ....but yes it's just to blend it . It's perfectly fine .Originally Posted by Inuhanyou
I get your concern OP, pay no attention to the people dismissing your concerns.
I don't think ND did it to purposefully demean your religious article of clothing, but its easy and more realistic to run around in a hijab in a middle eastern country while staying under cover.
I think that the function of the outfit serves the purpose enough to not have people second guess what the Hijab is actually for.
It's a perfect disguise for the setting. You could strip away cultural context and it'd still make sense why she'd dress like that.
It's a hijab worn in an Indian city . Muslims form a significant part of our population and if you go to heavily muslim dominated areas it's perfectly normal to see a woman in a hijab . So she could be blending in with her fellow city dwellers ... Think is making something out of nothing l
This is completely true, but OP is talking about a higher level of discourse. The implied connotations that the dress does indeed work, and is represented, as a disguise, hence feeds the paranoia narrative of some individuals.
That's kinda how I saw it- If it was being used for espionage in a European city or at a western airport I'd be much more likely to agree with the OP as that's the narrative that feeds xenophobia in western media. Having said that, sorry you feel that way OP.It's a hijab worn in an Indian city . Muslims form a significant part of our population and if you go to heavily muslim dominated areas it's perfectly normal to see a woman in a hijab . So she could be blending in with her fellow city dwellers ... Think is making something out of nothing l
Actually, yeah, fair point. But I don't think anyone should need to change behaviour or avoid something in a story based on the sensibilities of the paranoid. Of course, it's the effect of such paranoia and xenophobia upon individuals that is the issue the OP is concerned with, which is perfectly valid, but it just feels a bit wrong-headed to tread softly around xenophobes in case they get upset.Originally Posted by Vulcano's assistant
This is completely true, but OP is talking about a higher level of discourse. The implied connotations that the dress does indeed work, and is represented as a disguise, hence feeds the paranoia narrative of some individuals.
Last edited by redcrayon; Yesterday at 11:17 AM.
I'm going to sound really prejudiced if I'm wrong but I thought in some countries all women are asked to cover up out of respect if they follow the religion or not?
Depends on where you live your family /social circle plus "extent" of covering up . But anyway that discussion will derail this topic .Originally Posted by travisbickle
I'm going to sound really prejudiced if I'm wrong but I thought in some countries all women are asked to cover up out of respect if they follow the religion or not?
I'm afraid that people are gonna miss your point, OP.
As you said, I don't think it was intentionally harmful, knowing ND's track record, but it shows a disappointing lack of awareness and sensitivity concerning Muslim culture.
As you said, I don't think it was intentionally harmful, knowing ND's track record, but it shows a disappointing lack of awareness and sensitivity concerning Muslim culture.
I'll start by saying that I was under the impression the hijab didn't cover the face but just the hair and neck while the niqab was the one that covered the face (minus the eyes of course). So I was under the impression that was was worn was indeed a niqab. If someone can clarify that, much obliged.
And yes, one of the side-effects (or perhaps intentional effect, not really familiar with the actual original purposes of either tbh) of something like the hijab/niqab (whichever the right one is) covering everything but the eyes is that it does disguise the wearer. It conceals who they are unless you're familiar enough to recognize them just by voice and/or eyes (though makeup can also make a mess of that).
I'm not sure if the attire made sense in the region (I know muslism areas exist in India or near India at least, so perhaps it's set there? Not enough detail as of this moment) but assuming it does, a female using it would be rather normal, regardless of their objective (in this particular case to infiltrate a military area). I think using was the more logical choice on all levels, considering the setting.
That said I'm not muslim so I'm not sure if the representation of those elements is correct or not, so I'd like to hear their opinion on it. I *feel* nothing was done with a bad intent or out of the ordinary, but I may be missing a larger context.
And yes, one of the side-effects (or perhaps intentional effect, not really familiar with the actual original purposes of either tbh) of something like the hijab/niqab (whichever the right one is) covering everything but the eyes is that it does disguise the wearer. It conceals who they are unless you're familiar enough to recognize them just by voice and/or eyes (though makeup can also make a mess of that).
I'm not sure if the attire made sense in the region (I know muslism areas exist in India or near India at least, so perhaps it's set there? Not enough detail as of this moment) but assuming it does, a female using it would be rather normal, regardless of their objective (in this particular case to infiltrate a military area). I think using was the more logical choice on all levels, considering the setting.
That said I'm not muslim so I'm not sure if the representation of those elements is correct or not, so I'd like to hear their opinion on it. I *feel* nothing was done with a bad intent or out of the ordinary, but I may be missing a larger context.
Dw OP, I'm sure it's actually ND being broad thinkers as opposed to deliberate in their approach. As a Muslim its kind of inspiring to see the hijab in such a big game.
Try not to overthink it. If anything it's a demonstration of female strength while indirectly representing Muslim women in the west.
Try not to overthink it. If anything it's a demonstration of female strength while indirectly representing Muslim women in the west.
First of all its not just niqab/hijab , its a dupatta , most of the indian women wear that, and not just the muslim women.
Second doing face cover from men is somewhat traditional to do in india for women , especially in stranger place. So its perfectly done as it should be done by other women if presented in that situation.
So demeaning of religion is nothing to do with anything they have done in that walkthrough,there is veil on saree and dupattas on salwar kameez, they potray it effectively.
Second doing face cover from men is somewhat traditional to do in india for women , especially in stranger place. So its perfectly done as it should be done by other women if presented in that situation.
So demeaning of religion is nothing to do with anything they have done in that walkthrough,there is veil on saree and dupattas on salwar kameez, they potray it effectively.
You see what you want to see.
Chloe wasn't wearing a hijab. She was covering part of her face with a dupatta. It's mainly/typically worn by south asian women with a shalwaar kameez which is exactly what she was wearing in the presentation.
It has no connection to any religion.
Edit: beaten.
It has no connection to any religion.
Edit: beaten.
Last edited by Equanimity; Yesterday at 11:19 AM.
I agree. I think anyone who has a preconceived notion would go out of their way to confirm their believes anyway, as innocent a representation as you make it.Originally Posted by redcrayon
That's kinda how I saw it- If it was being used for espionage in a European city or at a western airport I'd be much more likely to agree with the OP as that's the narrative that feeds xenophobia in western media. Having said that, sorry you feel that way OP.
Actually, yeah, fair point. But I don't think anyone should need to change behaviour or avoid something in a story based on the sensibilities of the paranoid.
huh, never knew that was a dupatta was until now, even though I've heard the name of it before. Reminds me of when I found out what a serape was called for the first time.
Huh, leaning something new every day. Had no idea about those. Though a quick google search doesn't show a covered face like she had in the video (perhaps ND took some liberties with it?).Originally Posted by Equanimity
Chloe wasn't wearing a hijab. She was covering part of her face with a dupatta. It's mainly/typically worn by south asian women with a shalwaar kameez which is exactly what she was wearing in the presentation.
There was a slight sense of provocation about it. The whole scene, especially in the streets, felt politically charged and intense.
As simulations get increasingly realistic it gets harder and harder to trake serious, realistic content like this without political/historical/social context. Like, i want to know what contemporary warzone and country they are in. I want them to engage with the Sharia (or not) question or at least acknowledge it. At the very least, i want to know they're not going to wash over all the context.
However, OP, i didnt find this the use of the hiqab (edit: dupatta sorry) immediately problematic or challenging. It fit as her disguise and as pre-emptive self defence in very hostile territory. Just like Carrie at the start of (and throughout) Homeland wearing a scarf. (Her name is Carrie right...?) The specific situation justifies it - begs for it, even.
That said, I'm white/cis/male, so i have no right to really make that call.
As simulations get increasingly realistic it gets harder and harder to trake serious, realistic content like this without political/historical/social context. Like, i want to know what contemporary warzone and country they are in. I want them to engage with the Sharia (or not) question or at least acknowledge it. At the very least, i want to know they're not going to wash over all the context.
However, OP, i didnt find this the use of the hiqab (edit: dupatta sorry) immediately problematic or challenging. It fit as her disguise and as pre-emptive self defence in very hostile territory. Just like Carrie at the start of (and throughout) Homeland wearing a scarf. (Her name is Carrie right...?) The specific situation justifies it - begs for it, even.
That said, I'm white/cis/male, so i have no right to really make that call.
It's a woman trying to infiltrate an enemy base in India. Seriously, what would you expect her to wear?
The Hijab portrayal was largely positive and a great surprise.
She was able to fight & be fully functional while wearing it.(thus disconfirming commonly held negative that Hijab wearing women can't be fully functional)
Probably the first ever such positive portrayal in gaming.
She was able to fight & be fully functional while wearing it.(thus disconfirming commonly held negative that Hijab wearing women can't be fully functional)
Probably the first ever such positive portrayal in gaming.
What would have been the better solution? Changing the entire scenario of the scene?
They do it here in the Middle East as well. Several times men are caught trying to sneak past checkpoints in hijabs. It's definitely not uncommon.
Edit: after reflecting, I don't think my comment has much relevance in the context of this situation. I'd argue they can still preserve the scene but it's largely irrelevant if it's used or not in real situations.
Edit: after reflecting, I don't think my comment has much relevance in the context of this situation. I'd argue they can still preserve the scene but it's largely irrelevant if it's used or not in real situations.
Last edited by spindoc; Yesterday at 11:41 AM.
It's a disguise, there is nothing more to it, you are just seeking controversy at this point.
Should hockey players be offended by Friday the 13th? That's enforcing the stereotype that all hockey players are extremely violent.
Also, not every head scarf is a hijab.
Should hockey players be offended by Friday the 13th? That's enforcing the stereotype that all hockey players are extremely violent.
Also, not every head scarf is a hijab.
Exactly, it's a more Hindu way of hiding one's face called 'ghoonghat' and even the style of her dress (the salwar kameez) is pretty much small town Hindu girl.Originally Posted by Equanimity
Chloe wasn't wearing a hijab. She was covering part of her face with a dupatta. It's mainly/typically worn by south asian women with a shalwaar kameez which is exactly what she was wearing in the presentation.
Then again, referring to the OP's concerns - don't people mistake Sikhs for Muslims because turbans and beards?
Originally Posted by Cow1337killr
It's a disguise, there is nothing more to it, you are just seeking controversy at this point, it doesn't even look like a hijab.
Should hockey players be offended by Friday the 13th? That's enforcing the stereotype that all hockey players are extremely violent.
man shut the fuck up
Was it ? Didn't pay attention earlier. yeah it's a shalwaar kameez . Yeah no religious connotations there ... It's just a standard issue thing women in India Pakistan etc wear . Indian subcontinent in general .Originally Posted by Equanimity
Chloe wasn't wearing a hijab. She was covering part of her face with a dupatta. It's mainly/typically worn by south asian women with a shalwaar kameez which is exactly what she was wearing in the presentation.
It has no connection to any religion.
Edit: beaten.
I'm a Muslim and I didn't pick up on that but I can see where you're coming from. I'm just glad it was a "good guy" and that's really where most of my concern for this DLC comes from. I'm not only Muslim but I'm also from Pakistan, if someone with similar origins as I is portrayed in the media then it's either a cab driver, convenience store owner, and/or a terrorist. It can feel quite hurtful at times and I'm always super appreciative of anything that can show us as actual people. Though we don't know the extent of the segment in India it would be a little upsetting if corrupt, bullet-fodder guards (Muslim or otherwise) are chosen to be the face of that section.
This was my take. Journalists and tourists frequently observe local customs like this to avoid any potential problems.It's a hijab worn in an Indian city . Muslims form a significant part of our population and if you go to heavily muslim dominated areas it's perfectly normal to see a woman in a hijab . So she could be blending in with her fellow city dwellers ... Think is making something out of nothing l
To the people who are trying to justify this using practicality and realism, your missing the point. Plenty of harmful stereotypes exist in real life. Plenty of big lipped black people like fried chicken, watermelon, and grape juice (because those foods are fucking awesome). But if an artist carelessly decided to put that into a scene in their game, that would raise some alarm. Domestic abuse and sexual harassment is real, flamboyant gay people with lisps are real.
It's not about what's real. It's about how what is presented and what it implies.
This isn't an agreement with the OP. I want to see more discussions before I make that call. But people trying to argue by using real life as a justification are going about it the wrong way.
On that thought, it's actually interesting how often real life comes up as a justification in many talks about these topics. Often one of the first things you hear in threads about women being portrayed as weak in fiction is people pointing out their bodies are physically inferior, or some such examples. It's a trend, I think.
It's not about what's real. It's about how what is presented and what it implies.
This isn't an agreement with the OP. I want to see more discussions before I make that call. But people trying to argue by using real life as a justification are going about it the wrong way.
On that thought, it's actually interesting how often real life comes up as a justification in many talks about these topics. Often one of the first things you hear in threads about women being portrayed as weak in fiction is people pointing out their bodies are physically inferior, or some such examples. It's a trend, I think.
Last edited by Veelk; Yesterday at 11:29 AM.
Admittedly Chloe's more like chaotic neutral than straight-up good.I'm a Muslim and I didn't pick up on that but I can see where you're coming from. I'm just glad it was a "good guy" and that's really where most of my concern for this DLC comes from. I'm not only Muslim but I'm also from Pakistan, if someone with similar origins as I is portrayed in the media then it's either a cab driver, convenience store owner, and/or a terrorist. It can feel quite hurtful at times and I'm always super appreciative of anything that can show us as actual people. Though we don't know the extent of the segment in India it would be a little upsetting if corrupt, bullet-fodder guards (Muslim or otherwise) are chosen to be the face of that section.
But yeah the fact it was a key, well developed protagonist is fantastic
I thought it was a hijab too. Damn, you learn something new every day. thanks for that info.First of all its not just niqab/hijab , its a dupatta , most of the indian women wear that, and not just the muslim women.
Second doing face cover from men is somewhat traditional to do in india for women , especially in stranger place. So its perfectly done as it should be done by other women if presented in that situation.
So demeaning of religion is nothing to do with anything they have done in that walkthrough,there is veil on saree and dupattas on salwar kameez, they potray it effectively.
Not at all. Women covering their faces with a duputta is a common occurrence in rough areas.Originally Posted by RocknRola
Huh, leaning something new every day. Had no idea about those. Though a quick google search doesn't show a covered face like she had in the video (perhaps ND took some liberties with it?).
First of all its not just niqab/hijab , its a dupatta , most of the indian women wear that, and not just the muslim women.
Second doing face cover from men is somewhat traditional to do in india for women , especially in stranger place. So its perfectly done as it should be done by other women if presented in that situation.
So demeaning of religion is nothing to do with anything they have done in that walkthrough,there is veil on saree and dupattas on salwar kameez, they potray it effectively.
both perfect points.Originally Posted by Equanimity
Chloe wasn't wearing a hijab. She was covering part of her face with a dupatta. It's mainly/typically worn by south asian women with a shalwaar kameez which is exactly what she was wearing in the presentation.
It has no connection to any religion.
Edit: beaten.
this sort of puts ND in an impossible position of being utterly faithful to the region versus knowing their broad audience and imagery used.
a significant number of people on twitch thought that was an arab country spamming ANELE. not to take that at face value, i dont think its unreasonable to assume that most people see it as a muslim garment, however unintended it is, rather than a faithful representation of a part of india.
and here is why its impossible, because youre dealing with stereotypes, do you amend your accurate portrayal in order to be more conscious of the more sensitive issues affecting members of society?