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

Oh no, he was very proud of who he is. He is a circus preformer and was loved once he was there by crowds and his fellows.

No, he has devotion. He is either trained by priests or is a priest depending on certain continuities. He is actually pretty well adjusted compared to the rest of the group.

edited 17th Oct '14 3:55:56 PM by Gabrael

I don't know what Nightcrawler you guys are familiar with, but the one I know was a shameless flirt, and very much a ladies' man. Hell, his personal Danger Room program was him as a dashing pirate just a few steps short of being on the cover of a bodice-ripper.

And he WAS ashamed of his appearance until Wolverine talked him out of it and took him drinking. It pretty much sealed a lifelong friendship between the two.

His Catholicism only became a thing when Chuck Austen started writing X-Men, because if a character is in any way not what Austen is familiar with, he will take that alien element and make it 90% of their personality.

edited 17th Oct '14 3:58:23 PM by maxwellelvis

Yeah, I know what strain you are talking about. It is a very unpopular continuity and Marvel didnt cannonize it.

Ah. The only one I knew was the X men movie one. Which I am also aware is horrible.

Mmm. Gambit might, though.

Gambit. Pietro, maybe Iceman, Morph did, maybe a few.

And I don't think that is bad. I would love to see more guys represented like that.

Honestly, a sex positive character I have discovered is Jason Stackhouse from True Blood. If anything, I think he is a really good turned on it's head character who's the sex crazed, dumb jock. True Blood is also one of the few shows I know that has depicted male rape and was very fair that yes, he was a victim. And no one around him discounts or demeans him as a survivor.

Nip/Tuck also had a male rape survivor. But considering how odd that show is, I don't know if that's a good thing or not.

Alright, I'll admit I was mistaken with how far Nightcrawler may or may not be comfortable.

Bayonetta was mentioned in the comment section of that linked Deviant Art post in the previous page. That character has had heavy debate from feminists and non-feminists alike as to whether she's a good example of a sexual female character "done right" (like Movie Bob once said) or just another victim of the Male Gaze. Somewhere in that comment section was a link to this series of tweets defending her sexuality and calling for more nuanced discussions for it and body politics in gaming.

Maybe I'm biased or misinformed, but there seems to be way more male gaze than a female power fantasy would seem to call for with Bayonetta.

Not surprising that there's argument on the matter, considering that there are at least two major influences on the character. Who may not have had the same goals in designing said character.

http://ace-of-blue-spades.tumblr.com/post/100221319058/earlgreymartini-strelok-the-marked-one

The last comment there illustrates that it's more complicated than "she's empowered and was designed by a woman and therefor can't be sexist", especially given the fact that a game like Bayonetta isn't made by a single person alone. It's made by a TEAM of people that were assigned to the project. And which voice comes through the most isn't always clear. Shimazaki and Kamiya had different goals in regards to the character. Which one you see or agree with is a matter of... I'm not sure if taste is the right word here. *shrug*

Nettacki, that's not a very coherent or focused defense. Although Twitter doesn't really lend itself to nuance with this character limit. It demands brevity of wit, which most people don't have.

edited 17th Oct '14 5:33:49 PM by AceofSpades

That's what I've been arguing; just because a woman drew Bayonetta doesn't mean that she wasn't animated and programmed by the men on the project to act as they think sexy is.

To reiterate something King Zeal said, Bayonette reminds me of Kill La Kill. It may have some grounded and solid messages about positive body image and female confidence, but the success and depth of that message is overstated.

Kill La Kill is even worse about undermining it's own message because it becomes clear very soon that the whole plot is an excuse to get an underage girl as close to naked as possible.

Metroid Other M was also made by a team of people assigned to the project, and yet we put most of the blame of its shortcomings on the director Yoshio Sakamoto. Why is that okay, yet in the case of Bayonetta, we're more likely to put more blame on the team than the individual?

Also, Ryuko doesn't actually choose to put on Senketsu, nor does she really choose to overcome her shame at his skimpiness (if she hadn't, Satsuki would have beaten her in their fight).

edited 18th Oct '14 1:50:56 PM by Achaemenid

Because Team Ninja have said he had complete creative control over it.

And what makes you think Team Ninja did that to tell the truth and not as a way to point to him as a Scapegoat Creator? I mean, Team Ninja's not exactly known for making games that go beyond having women that are sexualized and not much more.

Well, we could start with the Metroid Other M entry in the very page you just pot holed.

Hmm, now that I've read that part, I think I'm starting to understand it again. I know that Team Ninja's head said it in an interview, thus clearing things up a lot. At first, I honestly thought that since it's the Team Ninja head's word against Sakamoto's non-action, that meant that it had to be clarified by Sakamoto first before we could actually say for certain it's because of Sakamoto's grips on the project. But when I read the part about them and Samus's VA recording some franchise anniversary messages while Sakamoto and Nintendo did nothing, I've started to more heavily believe Team Ninja's word again.

In other words, I took it at face value without questioning it, then years later I started questioning it, thinking there'd be even more to this story than what either Team Ninja or Sakamoto has let out.

Remind me again: in the end, is it really the individual artist's responsibility to provide proper balance in representation across all their works? Or is it only their responsibility to make their art and show it to the world?

Dunno. Artists generally need other people to get their art out there: where the buck stops is hazy. Which, is why, sometimes, it helps for people at all stages to ask themselves questions about what they're doing. <shrugs>

That's not a cut and dry answer.

You only have so much autonomy and at the end of the day, unless you sign your own paycheck you have to follow what you are told.

So instead of blaming just the artists, or just the management, look at both but ultimately, the management signs off on the final draft so the responsibility is with them.

Okay, so assume the artist has no manager to answer to and can make whatever they want. Is it still their responsibility?

Define "proper balance and representation."

"in" representation, not "and."

Like, for example, there's enough positive (ie, strong, independent, competent) portrayals of women in media to balance out the negative (ie, weak, overly dependent, incompetent) portrayals, something like what King Zeal and others said earlier in the thread.

edited 19th Oct '14 8:44:59 PM by Nettacki

If, one the very rare occurrence that an artist doesn't need somebody else for the whole "get enough to eat" thing, then: yes. It is their responsibility as a member of a vaguely cohesive society to at least attempt not pandering to the attitudes of 175 years ago. Unless the work is made to reflect that time period, of course. <_<

Why?