Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

But there is no point in using a male or female character most of the time. It just comes down to preference.

For example when I made my first RPG my main character was male, because I was male and I felt more comfortable using a male character.

Yet I really could have switched their genders and lost nothing... so there was no point in them being male either.

It was all arbitrary.

Which is somewhat why I understand why there would be a gender imbalance in games for reasons beyond sexism.

[Vector]

because I was male and I felt more comfortable using a male character.

This is why representation matters.

Now even if you didn't mean that in the way she took it (eg, literally)

I doubt she did, I explained it and if Vector honestly felt like I was just attacking her further she would have said so.

I actually bite my tongue a lot in order to keep from escalating fights. Sometimes I just give up.

[Ogdibus]

I know it's implicit, but I still think that we should clarify that when we say "traits", we really mean ideal traits, rather than intrinsic traits.  With that taken into consideration, feminist trait/value systems already agree with the argument that traits being gender associated is itself the problem.

It wasn't the impression I got reading the essay, but I don't entirely comprehend what you are saying. Ideal traits in a situation shouldn't be gendered.

I'm saying that I think you share the same opinion as most feminists on this subject, regardless of what's in the essay.

[Bauglir]

Feature on the casting of Alien.

Some quick notes. "We wrote everybody as men." Elsewhere this is described as unisex, but it's explicitly stated that the default was male. They noted that crew members could be made female to broaden the appeal of the film when they submitted the script. The decision to make Ripley female was more deliberately differentiating the film from other SF, along with the whole gritty/dirty aesthetic. A lot of it was to make it appealing to the studio which was rather invested in promoting female characters at the time.

I suppose that I'm going to have to conclude that she's a male character played by a woman, then. I should add the caveat, I suppose, that my main opposition to this is disliking design by committee for fairly arbitrary reasons. Fact is, that designation is entirely dependent on the ever-nebulous cultural context - if we get to the point where "male character played by a woman" becomes just "character played by a woman, for whom sex is beside the point", then it stops mattering. It just needs to be not the only kind of legitimately strong female character we have.

For example when I made my first RPG my main character was male, because I was male and I felt more comfortable using a male character.

This is exactly the point! You were more comfortable identifying with that character, which is a perfectly valid reason for preferring to take that direction.

[Graknorke]

because I was male and I felt more comfortable using a male character.

This is why representation matters.

Except Neo said in the rest of the post that it didn't actually end up mattering at all.

[Bauglir]

because I was male and I felt more comfortable using a male character.

This is why representation matters.

Except Neo said in the rest of the post that it didn't actually end up mattering at all.

So? He said it didn't matter to him, but he also precisely nailed why it does matter to a lot of people.

[penguinofhonor]

Divorcing all traits from gender in fiction probably won't work fully until personality traits are also divorced from gender in real life. Real people have experiences that are tied to their gender that cause them to have traits related to/because of their gender. Relatable characters can have these too.

The problem with the "man with boobs" hero is that it's a female character stripped of having many traits based on her gender that women can relate to based on their gender. That negates a lot of the point of representation.

So many vicious cycles.

Can you elaborate? I can defend this argument but I really don't know what you're saying exactly and don't want to write out a defense that doesn't address your criticism.

[Ogdibus]

Except Neo said in the rest of the post that it didn't actually end up mattering at all.

I think Neonivek was talking about mattering to the narrative, while Vector was talking about mattering to the player.  They aren't really contradicting each other on this.

[Jelle]

I've no intention of joining this discussion, but I thought I'd share my definition of a  'strong female character'.

The way I see it, generally speaking about genders, the male gender is the more active and the female the more passive. A man acts, a woman is acted upon. I just want to make things clear and reiterate this is generally speaking about genders, as well as that a persona is defined by far more than gender alone.

The way I would define a strong female character then is one who is more inclined to being active rather than passive. A person more resolute in her actions, with stronger will and just generally more assertive.

I should also note I admire strong female characters, both in media and in real life, for what it's worth to this discussion.

Right then, that's my opinion. Carry on.

[Neonivek]

Except Neo said in the rest of the post that it didn't actually end up mattering at all.

I think Neonivek was talking about mattering to the narrative, while Vector was talking about mattering to the player.  They aren't really contradicting each other on this.

Basically.

If all my characters gender flipped it wouldn't change the narrative.

You were more comfortable identifying with that character

It was more from me writing from experience with my own feelings and people around me being put into the characters.

It is why one female personality I like to put into my games is of a cold-blooded perfectionist... because that is what one of my sisters is like.

The way I would define a strong female character then is one who is more inclined to being active rather than passive. A person more resolute in her actions, with stronger will and just generally more assertive.

I've noticed this a lot where there is this strong hatred towards passive unassertive characters. I mean I understand why, but it is almost like the baby is being thrown out of the bath water.

Though it will always come back. I mean how long ago was it where a strong female character was NEVER to put on a dress? 15 years?

[Vattic]

I'm saying that I think you share the same opinion as most feminists on this subject, regardless of what's in the essay.

From what I understand I hold a lot of "third-wave" feminist beliefs, but remain leery of postmodernism.

Can you elaborate? I can defend this argument but I really don't know what you're saying exactly and don't want to write out a defense that doesn't address your criticism.

I was just noting how the same same cycle comes up again and again in these discussions; That culture influences art which influences culture. The relation to your post is that you were saying gendered traits are here to stay in the near term because they are cultural and that this is why female characters with masculine traits aren't representational, but this is only the case because of the culturally gendered traits. In part at least, you're bound to get people who do find themselves represented in these characters.

[EnigmaticHat]

I've no intention of joining this discussion, but I thought I'd share my definition of a  'strong female character'.

The way I see it, generally speaking about genders, the male gender is the more active and the female the more passive. A man acts, a woman is acted upon. I just want to make things clear and reiterate this is generally speaking about genders, as well as that a persona is defined by far more than gender alone.

The way I would define a strong female character then is one who is more inclined to being active rather than passive. A person more resolute in her actions, with stronger will and just generally more assertive.

I should also note I admire strong female characters, both in media and in real life, for what it's worth to this discussion.

Right then, that's my opinion. Carry on.

I would characterize this as a textbook ultra-conservative view on gender.  To elaborate, I'll compare the traditional view on childbirth and the modern view.  Traditionally childbirth is a thing that happens to a woman.  A man has sex with her, which is doubly active for him and passive for her.  First because in a traditional society a woman is not assured choice in who she has sex with, secondly because the act is physically penetrative and she is on the receiving end.  Then she gives birth, period.  At no point is her willing participation necassary.

In modern times however women are re-asserting their control over their own sexuality and ability to give birth.  That's a major reason people get so very pissed off about things like birth control, abortion, and planned parenthood.  They represent the ability of women to choose when and why they have sex, and also choose not to have kids.  This is also why MRA's and men of a certain age (an average of 22 is my impression) get so frustrated with women who choose not to sleep with them, because according to traditional views if a man desires a woman she should passively receive him.

We could go on to argue which model was prevalent in early humans and thus "natural" to the genders, but frankly that would be naturalistic fallacy.  Just because something is does not mean that it is good.

[Graknorke]

Except Neo said in the rest of the post that it didn't actually end up mattering at all.

I think Neonivek was talking about mattering to the narrative, while Vector was talking about mattering to the player.  They aren't really contradicting each other on this.

Oh, right. I can't sympathise with that view, really at all. The character is completely distinct from the player controlling them. I suppose that some people don't see it that way, but it's a thing so fundamentally different to the way I experience the media that I don't think I could really understand it properly.

[Glowcat]

* Glowcat gets to the part where dudes become indignant when it's pointed out that they're far less likely to encounter/see sexism than somebody directly effected by it. Her jaw gaps open in disbelieving amusement.

I can't believe the level of serious you guys held putting forth those arguments. Now I'm imagining what kind of self-conception you have of your own observational abilities. I can picture you periodically going out to stand in the middle of a crowded street and listen to the entirety of conversations, zooming in on any lewd or lascivious act with a hawk-like stare that disturbs nearby passers with its intensity. When you don't see it, it's clearly because a significant chunk of women who report its frequency are delusional and not yourself, since with your godlike perception abilities it would be impossible to miss the reality of encounters that women, particularly women alone, face. It couldn't be that YOU, a man, wouldn't have the same opportunity to encounter them! Reality would be misandrist if it would apply any inherent disadvantage to you*, even if that "disadvantage" is being free from a set of social entitlements placed upon your (perceived) gender category!

* Glowcat awards the bay12 band their award for providing a completely self-unaware example of "mansplaining" the existence and extent of sexism. Itself also an example of everyday sexism. Way to go, dudes!

* bonus sexist points if you've also argued for certain "biological realities" which rationalize a status quo of political/professional dominance by men. Equal when needed, inferior when not, am I right?!

Strong Female Characters

I don't particularly agree with the way Anita came at the problem here but, as was pointed out, the argument isn't as ridiculous as people are trying to paint it as. iirc the underlying issue she tackles is how heroic traits tend to emphasize a traditionally 'masculine' set of behaviors and appeal to traditionally 'masculine' values, rather than celebrate values that could be considered more feminine. It has been a while since I read the full paper but I believe that was the gist of it.

[Neonivek]

Your not a man, how do YOU know what we experience? For all you know that is exactly what we do.

Can we stop with the "guys are dumb to the plight of women" talk? I thought we finally stopped it.