Male Roles Vs. Female Roles in Fiction: Discussion/Analysis/Troperwank

At some point, people who are in the wrong are going to have to feel bad about being wrong. As always, Zenn, we shouldn't have to constantly discuss equality and social justice alongside "But what about how the Innocent Bigots feel?" At some point, those people need to freaking feel bad, and do some personal soul-searching. We can't keep moving our goalposts because we don't want them to be upset.

Just what exactly are you saying people should be doing Gabs?

Now personally if you're sort on a person who complains about how inclusion towards minorities will ruin the game industry then I honestly think you're sad sad human and will happily tell you so. (that's a hypothetical before anyone thinks that is directed towards). But by the same token I don't plan on or expect anyone to my it goal to call out and orchestrate the bad apples out there. I just don't see them as part of my community responsibility.

I love playing games but I don't 'identify' as a Gamer. It's a fun very little hobby to which I have very little emotional investment.

Allow me to repeat myself a third time:

Well good luck with that. Frankly however I don't do that. At least over something as trivial as someone's opinion of games. If a fan base wants to bitch and moan about a female mega man or how the sorceress from Dragon's Crown would have two black eyes from walking down the stairs, I'm fine to cut my losses and let them do it.

edited 4th Aug '14 6:38:59 AM by joeyjojo

Actually, based on what you just said, you're doing exactly what I suggested. You're ignoring them and not recognizing their opinions as credible or worth encouraging.

This isn't rocket science.

Ignore the jerks and encourage the more sane people not to hold jerkish beliefs.

Keep positive pressure on industries like the entertainment industry to cater to you and not them.

It's so easy it's hard for some people.

This is kind of exactly what I was talking about earlier.

Actually, I find people who feel "threatened" that their media of choice may end up changing to reflect changing times and people other than themselves to be completely and utterly laughable and worth of mockery. It's not like their actual well being is being threatened by changing values and media. And it's quite often because of things that they themselves are actually doing, such as disrespecting other people who like the changes. Cases I've seen have usually been a case of the vocal minority that Gabrael mentioned starting the argument in the first place.

Also, Mario's going to run out of nostalgia eventually so they're going to have to try something new. Or, you know, use some of that nostalgia on the one game where Peach was the hero.

So basically I'm with Gabrael on this one. I think I heard someone refer to this sort of thing as "critical intolerance." We have to describe why we object to the behavior (and quite often do, ad nauseum because this keeps happening) and not tolerate stupidity.

No Zenn,

You wanted us to be nice to douchebags and consider their views with equal respect and sympathy.

That's counterproductive.

I wouldn't give any consideration to a bigot. If they are horrible enough to send rape threats because a commentator or video game producer had the nerve to ask for variety, they might as well sign the roster of losers like a Westboro or KKK members.

We have better things to do.

Public shame has been a useful tool for social change in a past. Overt racism became less acceptable because people being overtly racist started being shamed for their views.

"I don't want the women folk to get to my games, who knows what scary changes they might bring" should not be a socially acceptable view in 2014.

There's a very fine line between saying that you strongly object to someone's belief and harassing or bullying them for it.

Now you're using very loaded language, Zenn.

This started as a commentary on shaming bigots and enablers, with you defending those who hold the assumption that the goal of social justice is said shame.

Now, you're talking about bullying and harassment, which (while not mutually exclusive) is not the same thing. As Dr. Starky said, "shame" in this context is hollow and vague; it apparently counts as "shame" if you use humor or satire to make very real points, and it also apparently counts as "shame" if you flat out tell someone what they're doing is wrong. In which case, "shame" is simply taking a stand on an issue that someone wants to ignore, no matter what methods are employed.

But, the goal of social justice is NOT to "bully" or "harass" someone to meet their goals. For one thing, social justice is an idea, not a group, and it's disingenuous to give anyone who believes that any person who fights for social justice intends to "bully" others any weight whatsoever. Some people may use bullying and harassment, but that is NOT what social justice is about. That is just as ridiculous as someone believing that the goal of education is bullying and harassment^note Again, which some people MAY use as a means, but hardly is the goal.

edited 5th Aug '14 10:39:58 AM by KingZeal

Nevermind.

edited 5th Aug '14 10:39:53 AM by SaintDeltora

Maybe you're right. When I think of "public shame", what I usually think of is something that's much more severe than simply calling others out on the awful things that they say, which seems to be very different from what most others here think of. I don't really know what to say here other than that maybe I was being a bit presumptuous, and I apologize for that.

Thread hop.

I've been busy today, so I could only skim through these articles, but the latter better echoes the issues we've discussed about designing compelling female characters. I feel that the former article's writer, while having her heart in the right place, is overlooking several of the problems that cause female characters (especially action-oriented ones) to just be poorly executed and even worse conceived in many cases. One of the reasons why I'm bringing this up is because I just finished having a brief discussion with an old professor about why so many female characters in fiction tend to be so poorly written.

You should notice that of the three women pictured in the beginning of the Jezebel article, two (Catwoman and Elektra) were the protagonists of unsuccessful movies, and many critics continue to use those two movies as examples of precisely how not to write a strong female character. I have reservations about earnest use of the term "strong female character", but I'll have to elaborate on that later.

Anyway, click on them and tell me what you think.

A New Female Superhero Movie Is Finally Happening

Why Strong Female Characters Are Bad For Women

EDIT: Another comment. I find it interesting that Sarah Connor is often cited as the epitome of a strong female character, but it seems that many people who have tried to duplicate that success missed the point of her characterization and backstory in the context of that particular universe. Connor has a context-appropriate reason for being mean-spirited, brooding and violent whereas other female characters like Elektra are just mean-spirited, brooding and violent because it's supposed to make them look cool. Elektra's psychological makeup and her motivation for participating in the story's central conflict are inconsistent with each other.

We seem to have gotten it in our heads that strong female characters must be abrasive and nearly anti-social in order to be compelling. It's an unhealthy trend that is blocking progress for legitimately well-constructed females. Katniss Everdeen is very well-constructed just as her fictive predecessor, Sarah Connor, is. But when I see people transplanting Katniss's psychological dilemmas and recklessly inserting them into their own world, they don't seem to understand why it comes off as incongruent. In other words, many writers are lost on what made both Connor and Everdeen successful to begin with, and it should be a major point of concern.

edited 5th Aug '14 12:33:43 PM by Aprilla

The classic "damsel in distress" trope is primarily associated with characters that are stereotypically feminine. With that association it can be very easy for a writer to misidentify the real problem.

Archetypal coding plays into how and why we use tropes for character establishment and character development. As it's been said with other character types, a character can be coded as a damsel in distress without necessarily being female. The backlash against the use of the distressed damsel partly derives from characters being rendered helpless when it doesn't match up with what we know about them. For example, a male character can be "damseled", and it can work because Tropes Are Not Bad. However, it can fail if we've learned that this character has a propensity to escape danger of his own accord. Of course, the trope can be problematic because it has been applied to females much more than it has been applied to males.

On a similar note, some people complained that Katniss Everdeen of The Hunger Games didn't spend enough time fighting in the movies, and some have even said the same of the books. I haven't read the books, but it's frustrating how many audience members didn't get the point Collins was illustrating with Katniss running into traps clumsily and hiding on tree branches for hours on end. She wanted to convey the sense of powerlessness, confusion and overwhelming fear a teenage girl would realistically experience in a state-mandated death match.

You can make a female character realistically weak, and it can and often does enhance here rather than reduce her. The fear of making a realistically fallible female character has produced the side effect of making females either a Mary Sue or a basically a gender-swapped version of Alan Moore's Rorschach - an anti-social malcontent with a dangerously warped sense of right and wrong. I mean, if that's what you're aiming for (in this case, Moore's social and political critique of the dark and brooding vigilante), do it, but don't take the "cool" parts of a Rorschach-like character, put them in a female body and call it a day without accounting for your setting and plot. Doing so is one of the things I really don't like about empty cynicism, especially when it comes to female characters.

edited 5th Aug '14 6:57:03 PM by Aprilla

Recently, there was an update on the new Smash Bros regarding Samus's new alternate outfits, that being her two-piece underwear sets from Fusion (blue) and Zero Mission (orange). Naturally, some people have already spoken up with stuff like "here comes the hate" due to this reveal, and others provided it with the usual thing about Nintendo taking the sexual objectification of Samus a bit too far. Then again, maybe it's not that bad, or if it is, it's certainly not because it was never there. Up to you to see.

courtesy link

edited 19th Aug '14 1:18:23 PM by Nettacki

A sports bra and a pair of shorts. How scandalous.

Given that this is really just a nod to previous entries in the series in a game that's already full of call backs to Nintendo games, I can't really say I'm too upset by this.

I do think that the gradual shift in Samus's character design to focus less on the iconic power suit and more on her being generically pretty is something of an issue, but that's a discussion for another time.

It is certainly more conservative then I was expecting.

And honestly, I don't think it would be that bad if this was just one thing instead of female characters being sexualized all to hell, especially in fighting games.

This is a tasteful middle ground I think.

I on the other-hand kinda don't like it, already bothered by he heels, and now they put her in her underwear during a fight?

Unless there is some sort of gym shorts equivalent for one of the guys, I'm not too pleased.

Little Mac? I hear he removes his jacket or something in his alt.

If Zero Suit Samus Gets it, Then Captain Falcon Deserves This

You do have to remember that this particular reskin is taken almost verbatim from the ending of Metroid Zero◊ Mission and Fusion◊, respectively. Complaining about a Call-Back in a series built on them seems rather pointless, at least to me.

Though I do agree that it would be hilarious to see Captain Falcon dressed in a Speedo. Make it happen, Sakurai!

edited 19th Aug '14 5:46:38 PM by Zennistrad