Feminist Frequency

[Thrik]

Whoa, not letting this shit go: there are physical differences between males and females, but they're close enough that weak men aren't as strong as strong women.

 

But in terms of brain operation there's very negligible differences (men have heavier brains but that doesn't appear to do much for us), and studies of matriarchal and gender-equivalent cultures demonstrate that the vast majority of behaviours we ascribe to gender are cultural, not genetic. The culture-derived behaviour I particularly enjoy telling people about is the idea that men have a 'genetic' impulse to have as much sex as possible - not only is it not shared by non-patriarchal cultures, it wasn't even shared by the Greeks, who believed that women were insatiable sexpots and men dictated when sex happened.

 

Genetically, men and women share the vast majority of our chromosomes. Men differ in only one chromosome (fun fact: all humans start off as biologically female until the Y chromosome kicks in, which is why we all have nipples). Any genuine differences between biological genders has to then express itself on the Y chromosome, which means that if any one non Y-chromosome carrier, anywhere, at any time, expresses it as well, then it can't be on the Y chromosome and therefore can't be something genetically exclusive to men, unless there's something unusual and special-case going on with the genetics. Anything that happens commonly with men but uncommonly with women is almost certainly cultural, not genetic.

 

There might be little difference in terms of brain structure and I don't doubt for a minute that many things we might assign to specific genders are a result of culture and upbringing, but I don't think it's right to say that there's a negligible difference between how men and women think and act. This just isn't true, with different hormones affecting how each gender thinks in numerous ways. It's not a myth that women tend to be more empathic and men more analytical, you only have to spend 10 minutes with either gender to know that.

 

One horribly sexist thing that some men say to women is that they're "on their period" whenever they show signs of anger or whatever. While this is pretty much completely abhorrent, it's a notable point that such a statement is actually based on an existing, provable biological phenomenon: women can and do become more irritable at certain times where men do not, and that right there is a fundamental difference in how they think and act. There are overlaps, but both genders have a fundamentally different perspective and if anything we should embrace and celebrate this rather than try to downplay it like some feminists seem intent on doing.

 

Of course this is an incredibly deep and far-reaching subject that I probably don't know enough about to get into, but I just wanted to make the point that men and women aren't negligibly different in non-physical respects, and it's not all culture. And that's not a bad thing.

[I Saw Dasein]

 It's not a myth that women tend to be more empathic and men more analytical, you only have to spend 10 minutes with either gender to know that.

Even if that were the case, there is no way to prove from that observation that the reason for the difference is physiological and not genetic. It is just as likely that women are culturally conditioned to be more empathetic as it is that they are physiologically disposed to be empathetic. So you can't draw conclusions about the cause of a perceived gender difference just by observing that a gender difference exists. 

[gregbrown]

There might be little difference in terms of brain structure and I don't doubt for a minute that many things we might assign to specific genders are a result of culture and upbringing, but I don't think it's right to say that there's a negligible difference between how men and women think and act. This just isn't true, with different hormones affecting how each gender thinks in numerous ways. It's not a myth that women tend to be more empathic and men more analytical, you only have to spend 10 minutes with either gender to know that.

 

One horribly sexist thing that some men say to women is that they're "on their period" whenever they show signs of anger or whatever. While this is pretty much completely abhorrent, it's a notable point that such a statement is actually based on an existing, provable biological phenomenon: women can and do become more irritable at certain times where men do not, and that right there is a fundamental difference in how they think and act. There are overlaps, but both genders have a fundamentally different perspective and if anything we should embrace and celebrate this rather than try to downplay it like some feminists seem intent on doing.

 

Of course this is an incredibly deep and far-reaching subject that I probably don't know enough about to get into, but I just wanted to make the point that men and women aren't negligibly different in non-physical respects, and it's not all culture. And that's not a bad thing.

 

There's a book, Delusions of Gender, that breaks down a lot of the pop-science that's been used to prop up sexist differences between genders. It's lazy and dangerous to take a characteristic exhibited by a certain gender and ascribe it to biological differences, when culture exerts an intense gendered focus from the start. Even buying a male infant pink clothing can invite backlash.

 

For example, imagine if you'd run the same survey—anecdotal or formal—in the 1950s. You'd get results that would indicate that women were naturally subservient to men, even though we know now that it was because second-wave feminism hadn't arrived yet.

 

And as Merus said, even on the capabilities where we can see a sex difference, intra-sex variation always far exceeds the inter-sex variation. Comparing the greatest athletes of both sex says nothing about everyone else. (It's the same mistake that Charles Murray made in The Bell Curve, and he even wrongly argued for genetic determinism there too!)

 

Appealing to biological differences to prop up stereotypes is so lazy—and pervasive amongst MRAs and their ilk—that most active feminists have rightfully come to deride them as "biotruths". The actual truth is far more complicated, and far more damning.

[Thrik]

I guess what I'd like to see is a fair representation of all kinds of women and men in games. I don't think tropes should be seen as an inherently bad thing, nor should anyone be afraid to depict a woman as a damsel in distress, or a man as a muscle-bound space hulk/witty stud. But I'd also like to see more female leads who're simply female and don't necessarily exhibit stereotypically female characteristics, something some games such as Mass Effect have already achieved. I'd also like to see more male leads who're not your typical strong, witty bloke: teenagers, socially afflicted twenty-somethings, hopeless combatants, cowards, old dudes, etc. Metal Gear Solid is again noteworthy for exploring these kinds of characters.

 

If anything, the trope issue in games affects male depictions just as much as female and the industry as a whole is still considerably behind film and TV in this respect. This kind of intertwines with the notion that video game writing in general is often pretty shit.

[Argobot]

I guess what I'd like to see is a fair representation of all kinds of women and men in games. I don't think tropes should be seen as an inherently bad thing, nor should anyone be afraid to depict a woman as a damsel in distress, or a man as a muscle-bound space hulk/witty stud. But I'd also like to see more female leads who're simply female and don't necessarily exhibit stereotypically female characteristics, something some games such as Mass Effect have already achieved. I'd also like to see more male leads who're not your typical strong, witty bloke: teenagers, socially afflicted twenty-somethings, hopeless combatants, cowards, old dudes, etc. Metal Gear Solid is again noteworthy for exploring these kinds of characters.

 

If anything, the trope issue in games affects male depictions just as much as female and the industry as a whole is still considerably behind film and TV in this respect. This kind of intertwines with the notion that video game writing in general is often pretty shit.

 

I don't think anyone disagrees with you here, there definitely needs to be a more diverse depiction of both genders in all games. And you're right, most tropes aren't inherently bad, it just because a problem when they're unquestioningly repeated so often that we start accepting them as fact (in this case, the fact that women need to be saved/protected by men, which even if you personally recognize as wrong, there are still tons and tons of people who don't, hence why this trope is a problem).

 

Yes, games as a whole need improving, and I think that projects like Sarkeesian's are a good attempt at showing what is wrong with games and coming up with ways to fix it. Since a lot of the issues with how women are represented in media are linked to how men are represented (overly masculine, unemotional, etc, etc), I think discussing and fixing the former will lead to better, more balanced representation of the latter.

[BigJKO]

There's no need to defend MGS or Dead Space because no one's attacking them. It's about tropes, and identifying them. Nobody's taking sides, not even Anita in her video.
 

Just to be clear, I am not saying that all games using the damsel in distress as a plot device are automatically sexist or have no value. But it’s undeniable that popular culture is a powerful influence in or lives and the Damsel in Distress trope as a recurring trend does help to normalize extremely toxic, patronizing and paternalistic attitudes about women.

(link)
There's nothing to cop out of here. Nothing to win or lose. The only thing that happens is that some people now know more about this particular trope.

[youmeyou]

I think that last sentence sums up a lot of game and often film writing in general. More often than not, you can bet that the following tropes will be used:

• Loved one is in danger and must be saved
• World is in danger and must be saved
• Main character has been wronged and must wreak revenge upon those responsible

As a lot of stories feature male protagonists it's an easy jump to imagine that when trope #1 is used, it'll invariably be a woman. While I would like to see more female protagonists in games and often choose to play as one when an option is offered like in Mass Effect, I'm not sure that the damsel in distress trope is noteworthy except in the most extreme cases and even then it's more down to it being a tried-and-tested plot formula than any kind of sexism or whatever, the same way that someone saving their family/friends (Because everyone is helpless except the main character, right?) is used all the time.

 

I mean, if we get to the point where we have to think long and hard about putting a woman in any kind of danger in a story then we're heading into some pretty daft territory IMO. Also I think picking and choosing these damsel in distress examples is questionable when during the same games you save numerous dudes too.

 

Sarkeesian isn't claiming that the damsel in distress trope is the most prevalent trope in all of gaming and only ever happens to women, no exceptions. She's simply pointing out its many, many instances and explaining how this trope removes a female character's agency in the game's narrative. That there are exceptions does not make this trope unnoteworthy. Like I mentioned before, it's not enough to look at the extreme and obvious examples; as the donkey kong video shows, even though most innocuous of examples can have an effect on the audience. That game writers are also lazy when writing men does not excuse that their laziness often conveniently results in stories where  men are the heroes and women are the damsels. (and if you'd like to dispute this I'd like to see more examples than the epicly mixed case of MGS) It's true that this is not an interesting depiction of either gender but it does give male players a power fantasy to live out and female players... not much.

 

I think we should get to a point where we think long and hard about EVERY character's roles in a game's story. There's nothing wrong with a little critical thinking when crafting narrative. (A ton of thought was put into The Walking Dead's Lee being african american, as an example) I think we are on the same page in that we both think game writers too easily revert to tropes and other lazy conventions. The Damsel in Distress trope is a vivid example of that, and it's a damaging one as Sarkeesian argues, and I agree.

[Thrik]

It's interesting that you mention the whole power fantasy thing. Is this something that a lot of people play games for? Thinking about it, I really can't recall any moment where I've felt truly thrilled by the fact that I'm playing as some powerful dude rescuing girls and smashing up enemies. I mainly play games for solving interesting gameplay problems (eg: clearing a room full of enemies stealthily) and for an enjoyable story.

 

Describing it as living out some fantasy just seems weird to me, kind of like saying that you're acting out some kind of fantasy of smashing up gems when you play Candy Jemz 3. If it were all about giving someone to fantasise as or relate to, why does my girlfriend love playing as characters like Kratos in God of War and Drake in Uncharted so much (this seems to not be an uncommon phenomenon), whereas I actually lean more towards rolling around as FemShep in Mass Effect or an old dude whenever I get to customise my character? Does she have fantasies of being some witty, muscular killer while I have fantasies of being a girl or a pensioner??

 

I am going nowhere with this, by the way.  Other than that maybe we should separate the whole trope issue from the fantasy/playing-as-someone-you-can-relate-to issue because I don't think they're necessarily connected. Tropes are bad whether you're a guy or girl playing as a guy or girl.

[Jake]

Games as wish fulfillment power fantasy is definitely a big big thing. Even Tim Schafer says he designs his worlds and player characters so that the player always gets to be the coolest person in the room when playing his games.

For what it's worth I feel this thread has run its course. I'm tempted to close it just to keep it from becoming fertile ground for drive by necro trolling, but I'll keep it open for a bit still.

Either way, I think the conversation would be better served long term by starting a fresh thread whenever the second FemFreq episode comes out, as a new conversation within this thread would have a lot of trouble overcoming the baggage of this thread.

[youmeyou]

FemShep is interesting as a case because I feel like part of what makes her such a popular character is her uniqueness in the medium. Even in other games which allow you to chose character customization, the actual character you chose is a blank slate and either doesn't talk or isn't voiced. Because FemShep is voiced and has a lot of writing, she feels like a totally separate (and cooler, sorry DudeShep) character than her male version. And it's certainly not because DudeShep is poorly voiced or acted, it's because we, both men and women, as an audience are starving for new and interesting characters and representations in video games.

 

Can you imagine the cult following a genuine female character of the caliber of FemShep (but not born out of character creation necessities) driving a game would cultivate?

[ItsMeYourFriend]

It's interesting that you mention the whole power fantasy thing. Is this something that a lot of people play games for? Thinking about it, I really can't recall any moment where I've felt truly thrilled by the fact that I'm playing as some powerful dude rescuing girls and smashing up enemies. I mainly play games for solving interesting gameplay problems (eg: clearing a room full of enemies stealthily) and for an enjoyable story.

 

maybe you do, but if everything were reduced to simple geometric blobs or replaced with cutesy cartoon animals would you still play those games? the setting and characters play a huge part in the appeal of certain games and that generic shooter guy does appeal to the power fantasy on some level  

[syntheticgerbil]

 Christ, this thread is nearly impossible to follow.

 

So do we get rid of all this kind of "meta-humor"? People like Barry Humphries have made an entire career out of it and it's really a bit of a disservice to say that it shouldn't be acceptable because some people won't get the joke.

Yeah I guess that's my question ultimately. I like this kind of dumb shlock every once and a while, but I do like it separated for more serious things. I wouldn't call myself sexist for finding some dumb sexist things funny.

 

It's when things like Bayonetta get trumped as some kind of women empowerment when things get annoying. But Bayonetta itself is a game full of dumb schlock and while I don't like Bayonetta, I understand the appeal. I don't know. Lots of people on Idlethumbs, including people in this thread, like stuff like that if our threads in the years gone by are anything to go by, but I wouldn't really assume anyone here is sexist or enablers of such.

 

But in this very specific case of DDN punching a woman in the stomach and then carting her off lack a sack of potatoes, I'm having a really hard problem seeing what the joke is and why anyone would really want to defend it.)

 

I think that's the thing, the original is in such bad taste, there's an element of making fun of it in Double Dragon Neon. Really, from what I understand from my friend who had played it, Double Dragon Neon is both a love letter and a roast of the original for it's idiocy all the same. This is not to say it's an essential joke, but it's one aspect of the theme of the game.

 

And like, you guys cite Louis C.K., but I personally don't get him. I find him way too constantly crude and offensive to the point where I feel sick after a while, but to each their own.

 

 

Solid Snake is than Meryl, to the point where he doesn't give a shit that she's pointing a gun straight at him because he knows that she's too much of a sissy to shoot him.

 While you do bring up the point of him not being scared of Meryl immediately after the saving, you are misrepresenting it still. Snake sees she has the safety on as well as noticing how she's holding the gun, not because he assumes she's a sissy since she's a woman. The same trick is used later against Ocelot and Johnny's rookiness later in the series, especially with Johnny being a complete reenactment. Really it all plays into Snake's skills of observation and this idea that he's the perfect soldier which is a main element to the series plot.

 

Again, I think you guys criticizing Metal Gear aren't that familiar with the series and should read this http://thehathorlegacy.com/the-women-of-metal-gear-solid-part-1/ Great read and pretty much goes into detail on what Thrik said. Metal Gear definitely has major issues (especially 4, see my issues in that thread), but has done some unique things at the same time with it's large inclusion of female characters in an otherwise big bro military world. Hopefully Anita will touch on Metal Gear a little bit more than just one isolated part where Snake is saved either by himself or the Ninja, depending on what path you take.

 

Like you say though MGS is a funny beast, personally I always saw Metal Gear Online to be completely filled with homoeroticism, though maybe that was because my character wore leopard print pants shirtless with suspenders and was a master at charming other men.

Holy fucking shit it does. If there's anything that permeates the series non stop is the homoeroticism. The amount of shots up Snake's ass alone I think outweighs any female gazes throughout the series. The butt hump shot in MGS4 on Act 2 is hilarious on how long it lingers. Forget that Vamp totally has a thing for Raiden and lots of other dudes, Snake and Otacon's love totally outweighs anything he had for Meryl once.

 

I think the biggest problem with Metal Gear in general is there is no actual game where you play a woman, even though it seems obvious.

[I_smell]

For what it's worth I feel this thread has run its course. I'm tempted to close it just to keep it from becoming fertile ground for drive by necro trolling, but I'll keep it open for a bit still.

 

Yeah I thought the role of power fantasies in games was something I was gonna start talking about, but now that was 5 posts ago. Now we're talking about sexist jokes or something? The thread's too broad to be an actual conversation.

[ItsMeYourFriend]

 I think that's the thing, the original is in such bad taste, there's an element of making fun of it in Double Dragon Neon. Really, from what I understand from my friend who had played it, Double Dragon Neon is both a love letter and a roast of the original for it's idiocy all the same. This is not to say it's an essential joke, but it's one aspect of the theme of the game.

 

while the majority of dd:neon is a love letter and roast of the original game and it gets goofy as shit later on, the beginning is played pretty straight: 

 

it's still a fucked up moment. I know it was in the original game but it was fucked up then too. (skip to ~33s)

 

(overall i actually liked the game though!)

[Argobot]

Either way, I think the conversation would be better served long term by starting a fresh thread whenever the second FemFreq episode comes out

 

Oh weird, my nose is bleeding.

[Jake]

Oh weird, my nose is bleeding.

We'll all be the same people when ep 2 comes out, but I'd rather any noobs to the discussion brought on by ep 2-2,000 don't have to start with the first 10 pages of this one.

[Argobot]

We'll all be the same people when ep 2 comes out, but I'd rather any noobs to the discussion brought on by ep 2-2,000 don't have to start with the first 10 pages of this one.

 

Oh no you're absolutely right, starting fresh for the next episode is a really good idea because trying to continue a coherent discussion in this one is basically impossible. (Sorry for a poor attempt at humor there.)

[brkl]

Such a strange thread. Good thing I left and didn't mess it up any more. Reading it now, I totally would not have had the patience to have some of the conversations that took place and would have just spouted off instead.

[Lu]

I'm totally for a new thread for the new episode discussion too, because eesh! It was like I suddenly wasn't on Idle Thumbs anymore and it was unsettling.

[Twig]

UNNECESSARY SNARK NEVERMIND 

[Irishjohn]

I'm totally for a new thread for the new episode discussion too, because eesh! It was like I suddenly wasn't on Idle Thumbs anymore and it was unsettling.

I hadn't checked in for a bit, jumped to the newest page. Seems I missed something. Not worried that I did either, from the sounds of it.

[tronhound]

 While you do bring up the point of him not being scared of Meryl immediately after the saving, you are misrepresenting it still. Snake sees she has the safety on as well as noticing how she's holding the gun, not because he assumes she's a sissy since she's a woman. The same trick is used later against Ocelot and Johnny's rookiness later in the series, especially with Johnny being a complete reenactment. Really it all plays into Snake's skills of observation and this idea that he's the perfect soldier which is a main element to the series plot.

 

I'm going off topic here, just wanted to point out that Johnny is the guard Meryl knocked out in MGS1 when she busted out of the cell. So Snake giving him the whole "haven't even taken the safety off" speech is just about the greatest throwback ever.

 

Anyway the whole reason I brought Metal Gear into this is because Anita completely misrepresented the game in her video.

 

Edit: I feel kind of bad for taking the SotC thread off rails, what do you guys think will Anita tear apart ICO and SotC?

[Argobot]

Anyway the whole reason I brought Metal Gear into this is because Anita completely misrepresented the game in her video.

Edit: Ugh you're right, I was thinking about Metal Gear Solid. Sorry, that was dumb.

[tronhound]

She's shows the game, makes out that it empowers males because Snake can get out of prison on his own (he can't) and paints Meryl as a damsel in distress (she broke out of prison on her own).

 

Any further argument about Metal Gear Solid will be answered with 'nanomachines'.

 

Edit: just saw your edit, I am talking about Metal Gear Solid, though in her video it looks like she shows footage from Twin Snakes.

[Ben X]

I think this thread went on for so long and got so awful at points because it has the feminism thing tied into it, which is one of those subjects that people seem to need to WIN rather than discuss (cf. the Feminism thread). When the second thread comes round, I think it'll go a lot nicer if everyone gets out of that mindset and stops insulting or trying to shut down other people's opinions. Disagreeing with others' arguments is fine, but calling them absurd or garbage isn't very constructive, and telling someone why they have their opinion is rather presumptuous and rude. Also, saying that a certain aspect shouldn't be discussed or that things are being over-discussed seems counter-intuitive on a discussion forum. Finally, it would be sage to remember that we have at least one troll floating around and if someone's particularly winding you up, that may be exactly what they're aiming for.

 

Of course, I won't say that the way people have been discussing things has been "wrong", because that would make me a giant hypocrite. This is merely my opinion, and one I've been itching to say through most of this thread but couldn't find the place for. It's not an exaggeration to say that I've been very disappointed with people on both sides of this thread at times, but a lot of good discussion has come out of it as well so I'm looking forward to the second thread!