trinityvixen | I am woman, hear me BOOP BEEP BOOP

Entry tags:

I am woman, hear me BOOP BEEP BOOP

I don't have any particular dog in this fight over Bayonetta's feminist icon status. I haven't looked at trailers or played demos or the game itself. I've seen a picture of the lead character, which only makes me wonder if the developers managed to bang this game out after Sarah Palin rose to national prominence or if the resemblance between Palin and Bayonetta is purely coincidence. So I haven't got much of any interest in joining the fray over her feminist icon status.

I can, however, respectfully disagree with the following from a pro-Bayonetta statement without weighing in on Bayonetta specifically:

As a woman, I haven't often been satisfied by female character options that effectively boil down to "the same thing as a man, just with breasts and a ponytail." Thanks to its innovative approach to the idea of female power, Bayonetta is the first action game heroine that's made me directly conscious of how cool it is to be a girl.

What the author is implying, if I read this comment right, is that she objects to games that are feature ungendered protagonists--that is, the gender of the protagonist never comes up or is not essential to the story (like in Portal--or where the protagonist could have been male but just happened not to be (Tomb Raider, Metroid even). But I also think she's targeting games like Mass Effect or the RPGs like it that allow you to create a male or female character who more or less works through the same story. That character is never treated differently by the story for being male or female, though his/her romantic interests do vary somewhat. That's just putting boobs on a man, and to this author that's not feminism.

Now, obviously, "putting breasts on a dude" sounds like a very bad thing, and it can be so far as it becomes a reduction female-ness to a bare minimum to make a character tolerable (on top of possibly objectifying that character). This is indeed a Very Bad Thing because a) it assumes a mostly male audience and b) that this mostly male audience is so immature they cannot possibly stand a female avatar unless she is as little like a woman to the point that breasts are the only difference between her and a player. Very insulting that.

But? There is also a lot of power in relegating breasts themselves into that "no big deal" category. If I might stay with the example I know best, in Mass Effect, making Commander Shepard's gender one of many features you can tweak--alongside much more personality-shaping ones like his/her personal history, facial disfigurement, and overall attitude--is a good thing, feminism-wise. Sometimes, Shepard is a dude. (Notably, in all the promotional pictures and videos for the game and the sequel, Shepard is male.) Sometimes, Shepard is a woman. Sometimes s/he is a Biotic; sometimes s/he is a tech. It's just one thing to change to enhance gameplay, to encourage you to play again. It certainly worked on me. I played a female Shepard the first time through, mostly because of the novelty of being able to create a woman player character but also because the male characters? UGLY AS SIN. I did, however, play a male Shepard, if only to see what was different. Know what was? One of my choices of mate and my voice actor. Otherwise? Good old Shepard.

I have always felt that there is a lot to be gained by writing characters first, genders second. Story writers are crippled by their own unknown privilege and prejudice and by the ignorance and low expectations of their audience. Video games, even more so than movies and television, continue to be dominated by male creators--writers, animators, developers, etc.--and it's not easy to jump into the heads of people they are not: women, minorities, non-humans (just to name a few). Which is why I'd rather they focus on creating a character worth learning about and spending time with--someone noble, possibly a bit ruthless, efficient, determined, special--and worry about drawing that character's body second. This is not always an option when a story depends on biological sexual differences, politics of sexuality and gender, etc. But when your story is about a member of the universe's elite space police force, what does having breasts or lacking them have to do with anything? And doesn't relegating that decision to a second-tier priority (if not lower) actually further the true cause of feminism--which is general recognition that women are human and every bit as prone to fits of heroism or villainy as men?

I've no idea what the author at that link means by this other line:
I already know that women can do all the same things men can. This time, I get to see a woman do plenty of things men can't. And I love it.

Does Bayonetta give birth in this game? Does she suckle an infant? Does she get her period? What, exactly, besides those things, can she do that men cannot? (Is it because she's a witch? There are male witches!) This tips me off to wondering what it is that a "girl" can do that a man cannot because this is going to be more indicative of the writer's bias than of the game's contribution to or destruction of feminism...

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I'm guessing the last line refers to other lines such as: "the game itself is an artistic representation of the concept that female sexuality is its own kind of weapon." Try as I might, I haven't been able to pull that one off....

Anyway, I'm quite sure there's room for both sorts of characters, though I can't fault your (or anyone's) personal preference.

Female sexuality as weapon. Yeah, right, haven't seen that anywhere before. ::rolls eyes::

I don't have a problem with women using sex, even as a weapon, because humans use sex as a weapon. I prefer not reducing female characters to those antics alone, though, something which they are more likely to do than male characters.

In Geoff Ryman's SF novel The Unconquered Country, poor women use their wombs to develop living technologies (fathered by men with high-tech altered gonads). For a video game, I could see an amped-up version where our female protagonist can fire rocket-propelled cyborg death babies out of her crotch.

::backs away from the internet::

ROFL.

To paraphrase P.J. O'Rourke: "Men and women differ in some ways that are wonderful, like in making babies, and don't differ in many other ways, like when shooting evil aliens." (He used corporate contracts as the example). The thing is, for the vast majority of things video game protagonists do, there's no difference beyond what tab goes into what slot during the "explicit" cut scene that Fox News will think is porn.

So yeah, unless the critic is going to provide some spoilers detailing how the character's femininity has anything to do with the game beyond the cool visuals, I don't much see the point of claiming something especially feminist about the game.

I just know I'd rather be playing a Klingon, or Commander Shepard, and I'll get to do both fairly soon. The first, tomorrow!

The thing is, for the vast majority of things video game protagonists do, there's no difference beyond what tab goes into what slot during the "explicit" cut scene that Fox News will think is porn.

Unless it's sex or sex-related, it's pretty hard to make a case that a protagonist has to be male or female. I mean, you could rewrite any of the games I've played lately to a gender-swapped universe, and it wouldn't change a damn thing. (It might defy currently prevailing social norms here or there, but not even that many!)

With Mass Effect, you had different people to sleep with, and there was some issue of sexual politics, but it all centered on the fact that you were getting it on with a subordinate, not that said subordinate was male/female to your male/female character (nor was their an issue of homo- versus heterosexuality).

Oh God, this has all made me absolutely GAGA to play Mass Effect 2. I shouldn't even LOOK at gaming sites right now. I keep going, "That's nice. What I'd really like to do is play Mass Effect 2."

Hmm. This is a good question. I'll go so far as to say that the character's gender matters as to one of the most-reliably-included attributes in constructed gender roles.

Other than that, sure, for all gameplay and plot purposes that aren't simply "we say they're an order of women", she could be male (note that I am only about 2/3 of the way through the main story, I think).

Wait, are we confusing sex and gender here?

It'd be pretty cool if a game allowed you to pick your protag's sex and gender, and that was two different choices.

Games have started to get there with same-sex flirtations. I'm not pressing them to give us transvestite or transsexual characters just yet. (Mostly? I'm not sure I'd like what they came up with.)

I'll go so far as to say that the character's gender matters as to one of the most-reliably-included attributes in constructed gender roles.

Sorry, having trouble parsing that. Are you saying that Bayonetta's gender happens to matter in this game in some spoiler-y way that you won't describe, or that saying that a character's gender matters is part and parcel of the persistence of gender roles?

Maybe she shoots bullets out of her tits. Automatically, when she catches a bad guy staring at them.

(Is it terribly un-feminist of me to want to play this game because I heard it was actually a fun game?)

No more than it's sociopathic of me to want to play GTA because it's a fun game.

Also, it's not un-feminist of you because you're a lesbian, so that makes it another social issue altogether.

lol, there's something kind of awesome about my own husband calling me a lesbian. :P

I don't think there's any problem with playing a game 'cause it's fun. You can enjoy it and still nitpick it. You're allowed to have fun.

It may be that she's using female stereotypes as empowering rather than crippling, like Ripley in Aliens, by subverting them and using them to do things that aren't expected. I have to hope this is the case, because it's the only way I can see the comment making any sense.

I find it interesting though that making use of female stereotypes is a good thing in games on female characters, such as motherly protection of offspring, not so much with the obsession over shoes (yes, I'm using stereotypes, I'm not saying they're good ones). Using male stereotypes on female characters without totally overdoing it and turning them into Rambo also works well, both create conflict.

However, if you gender-flip this and use female stereotypes on men, society won't accept it. Action Hero Man who also protects his kids? Maybe, but he'd better be Action Hero Man first and obviously Action Hero Man who's obsessed with shoes, unless they're amazing tech is out of the question. What this tells me is that in modern society Male gender roles, particularly in representational media such as big blockbuster games and movies are far narrower than Female gender roles. I think this comes from the Male steretype having a vastly reduced number of emotions, most of which are directly relatable to conflict, rather than indirectly, which is where story has to be a part of the picture.

While I'm a big fan of equality, I have to wonder what side society's representations are actually falling on these days. Do guys have to be gay and enter a whole new range of primarily feminine stereotypes just to escape the boring masculine ones we've had for far too long? They certainly haven't changed much since Victorian times. It seems female characters are allowed to experience and react with far more range than male ones, while male ones are still most frequently allowed to get away with more independent action and less care for consequences.

Maybe that's what I want, more male characters who care about consequences and don't just jump in without thinking. As much as the new Sherlock Holmes differs from the presentation of the original, I don't think he is that much different and I think males need more of these role models who are capable of both thinking and acting, even if he is emotionally stunted, but all good characters need flaws.

I think our society accepts protecting one's kids, or even kids in general, as an acceptable thing for a manly man to do. The shoes, on the other hand, yeah.

Here's a thing: Y'know the word "metrosexual"? A hetero man who's got high standards on matters of appearance and fashion? Out in red-state land, that's commonly interpreted as effeminate. Arnold Schwarzenegger is an admitted metrosexual, and yet any number of right-wing cultural critics use Schwarzenegger as an example of the opposite of what they think a metrosexual is. Because even though Arnie pays attention to his appearance and likes shopping, he's so strongly associated with notions of brutal masculinity that they just can't hold the two images in their heads at the same time.

I think our society accepts protecting one's kids, or even kids in general, as an acceptable thing for a manly man to do. The shoes, on the other hand, yeah.

Most of the time, it's important to note, those kids are in peril or are dead and being avenged. We rarely see the protective side of fatherhood from a nurturing or teaching aspect with fathers and children onscreen. Yes, Daddy will come rescue you when the terrorist kidnaps you. What does he do the other 364 days? Does he change diapers? Is he picking you up from soccer practice? Is he cleaning the house? Fathers are allowed to be two things 99 times out 100: leaders and protectors.

I agree that it's acceptable, but how often is it depicted? If you don't have kids, but do have emotions, where does that leave you?

sylver_spiders pointed out to me, these depictions do exist, they're all the nice guys who don't get the girl. Alternatively, they're the male friends of girls who get very little character development, because society has little interest in men who can be friends with women as ole models, unless they can derive some entertainment from it, since it's more fun to make fun of someone different to yourself than it is to acknowledge they have more in common with you than not.

It may be that she's using female stereotypes as empowering rather than crippling, like Ripley in Aliens, by subverting them and using them to do things that aren't expected. I have to hope this is the case, because it's the only way I can see the comment making any sense.

Ripley was originally written as male. Fun fact. To James Cameron's credit (he and his Aliens writers), Ripley in Aliens was much more identifiably gendered as female. She has monstrous birth nightmares; she doesn't go out to combat the Aliens directly for most of the movie; and she is very protective of a child. What elevates Ripley above the nurture-provider stereotype is, admittedly, her bad-assery, but it's also the fact that the male lead--Hicks--is easily as protective of life as she (he aids her in finding Newt; he takes care of the marines after their father figure dies; he becomes the damsel in distress when the Alien blood hits him). The fact that they are not yin and yang polar opposites but matched makes their relationship to one another extremely level (and enjoyable: although Hicks is macho and a tad bearish, he listens to Ripley's advice).

The issue of gender-flipping is a fair one, which is why sexism hurts everyone and is worth everyone caring about. Mass Effect had a good example of gendered characteristics being swapped to different sexes--my gunnery chief was a woman, and a hard-assed one; my main biotic was a rather cuddly dude. Didn't make her less sexy, didn't make him less of a man. But that was the future, where I can be a crazy rogue agent and receive no fewer raised eyebrows for being a dude than I did as a woman. Modern life is not so forgiving.

Do guys have to be gay and enter a whole new range of primarily feminine stereotypes just to escape the boring masculine ones we've had for far too long? They certainly haven't changed much since Victorian times. It seems female characters are allowed to experience and react with far more range than male ones, while male ones are still most frequently allowed to get away with more independent action and less care for consequences.

The flip side of this is that even if men return to the same limited pool, they are the ones we see more often. Yes, men are restricted, but women are hardly even seen. And when they are, their roles tend to be limited just as much and as often. You mention Sherlock Holmes which I find interesting because of the recent hubbub about the lady who owns the rights to the character refusing to let another movie go forth if Watson and Holmes are gay for each other. What's fascinating here is that Robert Downey Jr. is one of those actors who will go there with the gay and get away with it. He's just zany and crazy talented to pull it off--to get around preconceived biases against embracing such things without relegating the post to unmanliness. In that case, it would be triumph to have a character be gay and break the barrier going the other way: just as Action Men(TM) can't be effeminate, so neither can effeminate men be Action Men(TM). Let's hope that that changes.

I can't tell you how much it bothers me when women characters are in a story purely to be demonstrably maternal. It's one of the things that drove me nuts about Tenenbaum--she may have helped Nazis and developed genetic splicing, but HER MATERNAL INSTINCT WON.

WTF.

Let's make our own feminist game!

I could do, but I'm sure I don't know what a feminist game is. That's sort of the point of my long-winded post. I'm pretty sure what I think is feminist...isn't to a lot of other folk.

I can understand the writer's excitement for a female character who embraces her femininity; however she doesn't really provide any examples that actually prove that this game is a celebration of femininity. It sounds like creepy fetishistic bullshit, what with the clothes flying off in battle and the fucking lollipop (no seriously, what the fuck is that?).

I'm not knocking on the game's fun level, but her whole article was kind of a stretch to me, especially since her claim of awesome femininity fits very conveniently into what's acceptable to men, and doesn't really stand on it's owns separate level of awesomeness.

I figure that half the problem with her argument is that she is unwilling to be specific about what it is with Bayonetta's actions that amount to her reveling in her own femininity or whatever and using it to her advantage in a way that doesn't require male approval of it. Perhaps she's avoiding spoilers? Whatever the problem, she hasn't got the evidence to show that this character being naked isn't just about titillation, and ditto for the rest of it. Spoiler constraint sucks. It's entirely possible she's got a great reason for arguing as she does, but she can't prove it, so it looks foolish.

I can see, however, how absolutely everything described could be feminist. Just because something is titillating doesn't mean it isn't also feminist. A lot of feminism is about overcoming female shame for sexual desire. Overtly, unapologetically sexual women are powerful, free women who should be celebrated. It's possible that Bayonetta isn't at all intimidated about being naked, etc. which is cool...until you realize that there's necessarily problematic issues with making that statement because she is, in fact, controlled by a player. It's more problematic than the same character in a movie as a result.

I can see, however, how absolutely everything described could be feminist.

Yeah, that's true. And I can see where someone would be happy for a sexy female character that embraces her sexuality, especially with stuff like Dead or Alive out there, with their weird fantasy girls. I used to play DoA 2--I like fighting games--and I found on youtube this REALLY CREEPY ending animation video for one of the girl characters in DoA 3 or 4 that kind of made me never want to play my old DoA 2 copy again.

But back to Bayonetta. I guess I just don't find that kind of empowerment interesting (if it is indeed empowerment). Also, I am REALLY freaked out by that lollipop business! Now that Shepard stuff you mentioned, that is cool.

But back to Bayonetta. I guess I just don't find that kind of empowerment interesting (if it is indeed empowerment). Also, I am REALLY freaked out by that lollipop business!

I'm intrigued by the character design, not going to lie--supposedly her entire outfit is made of hair! That's something you can make into something fascinating. I'm totally cool about people trying, too! I just don't think they're making a major play at being feminist pioneers in so doing.

Now that Shepard stuff you mentioned, that is cool.

Shepard is cool. Shepard is like a Jedi, which is obviously cool. And you can choose to be good or bad, which is a bonus! The girl/boy stuff is secondary, as it should be.

until you realize that there's necessarily problematic issues with making that statement because she is, in fact, controlled by a player.

Not to mention that empowering-female-sexuality becomes much more... complex... when there may not be any actual woman involved. If the game's designed, executed, and played by men... what is there?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I am woman, hear me BOOP BEEP BOOP

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject