Discussion History VideoGame / SlaveMaker

\\\"Writers tend to arrange stories so that the protagonist acts in a way that is responsive to circumstances, that is to say, in the way we experience ourselves in everyday life.\\\"

http://www.onfiction.ca/2011/02/actor-and-observed-man-and-woman.html

We identify with characters more when the characters in question are not perceived to have motivation or personality separate from our own. In other words, the most identifiable characters are cyphers who act to achieve a goal we buy into but have little personality or motivation outside of that.

We identify more with male characters precisely because we believe they feel less and act more then female characters.

\\\"The researchers explain this effect in terms of the actor-observer bias. In general, say Bortolussi and her colleagues, men in Western societies tend to be seen as acting in response to circumstances (\\\"he did what he had to\\\") whereas women tend more often to be seen in terms of their personality (\\\"she behaved emotionally\\\"). Thus, for both men and women, our social stereotypes make it easier in stories to understand and to identify with a male protagonist, the kind of character who acts in response to the situation he is in, than with a female protagonist, the kind of character who acts because of her personality.\\\"

Male characters become cyphers for the audience. They aren\\\'t perceived to have a personality distinct from the audience in the same way female characters do.

This allows for greater identification but it also means we don\\\'t empathize with male characters as much. By definition empathy requires recognizing that there is another person with a separate personality and motivations to empathize with. Female characters are perceived to have their own personality and motivations; male characters are not, at least not to the same extent.

Because of this when female characters are threatened we can actually feel a sense of alarm or urgency. There\\\'s an actual \\\'person\\\' there being threatened. Male characters, on the other hand, don\\\'t create the same sense of concern in the audience when they\\\'re threatened. Possibly because the audience only identifies with the male character to the extent that he acts and when he stops being able to act they stop identifying and can\\\'t empathize \\\'\\\'because there is nothing there to empathize with\\\'\\\'. Thus MenAreTheExpendableGender.

These, of course, are not absolute statements.

\\\"Writers tend to arrange stories so that the protagonist acts in a way that is responsive to circumstances, that is to say, in the way we experience ourselves in everyday life.\\\"

http://www.onfiction.ca/2011/02/actor-and-observed-man-and-woman.html

We identify with characters more when the characters in question are not perceived to have motivation or personality separate from our own. In other words, the most identifiable characters are cyphers who act to achieve a goal we buy into but have little personality or motivation outside of that.

We identify more with male characters precisely because we believe they feel less and act more then female characters.

\\\"The researchers explain this effect in terms of the actor-observer bias. In general, say Bortolussi and her colleagues, men in Western societies tend to be seen as acting in response to circumstances (\\\"he did what he had to\\\") whereas women tend more often to be seen in terms of their personality (\\\"she behaved emotionally\\\"). Thus, for both men and women, our social stereotypes make it easier in stories to understand and to identify with a male protagonist, the kind of character who acts in response to the situation he is in, than with a female protagonist, the kind of character who acts because of her personality.\\\"

Male characters become cyphers for the audience. They aren\\\'t perceived to have a personality distinct from the audience in the same way female characters do.

This allows for greater identification but it also means we don\\\'t empathize with male characters as much. Empathy requires perceiving that there is another person with a separate personality and motivations. Female characters are perceived to have their own personality and motivations; male characters are not to the same extent.

Because of this when female characters are threatened we can actually feel a sense of alarm or urgency. There\\\'s an actual \\\'person\\\' there being threatened. Male characters, on the other hand, don\\\'t create the same sense of concern in the audience when they\\\'re threatened. Possibly because the audience only identifies with the male character to the extent that he acts and when he stops being able to act they stop identifying and can\\\'t empathize \\\'\\\'because there is nothing there to empathize with\\\'\\\'. Thus MenAreTheExpendableGender.

These, of course, are not absolute statements.

> in other words, the categorization of anything like that under Objectification is wrong.

Fair enough. Papercutchainsaw and I are discussion re-labeling that category with \\\'objectification\\\' as a subcategory.

>The example is Jack Bauer, right? He\\\'s a protagonist! I haven\\\'t seen 24, but, just because he is the protagonist, he must have feelings, and the audience must empathize with them — otherwise he wouldn\\\'t be the protagonist or there wouldn\\\'t be a story.

\\\"Writers tend to arrange stories so that the protagonist acts in a way that is responsive to circumstances, that is to say, in the way we experience ourselves in everyday life.\\\"

http://www.onfiction.ca/2011/02/actor-and-observed-man-and-woman.html

We identify with characters more when are not perceived to have motivation or personality separate from our own. In other words, the most identifiable characters are cyphers who act to achieve a goal we buy into but have little personality or motivation outside of that.

We identify more with male characters precisely because we believe they feel less and act more then female characters.

\\\"The researchers explain this effect in terms of the actor-observer bias. In general, say Bortolussi and her colleagues, men in Western societies tend to be seen as acting in response to circumstances (\\\"he did what he had to\\\") whereas women tend more often to be seen in terms of their personality (\\\"she behaved emotionally\\\"). Thus, for both men and women, our social stereotypes make it easier in stories to understand and to identify with a male protagonist, the kind of character who acts in response to the situation he is in, than with a female protagonist, the kind of character who acts because of her personality.\\\"

Male characters become cyphers for the audience. They aren\\\'t perceived to have a personality distinct from the audience in the same way female characters do.

This allows for greater identification but it also means we don\\\'t empathize with male characters as much. Empathy requires perceiving that there is another person with a separate personality and motivations. Female characters are perceived to have their own personality and motivations; male characters are not to the same extent.

Because of this when female characters are threatened we can actually feel a sense of alarm or urgency. There\\\'s an actual \\\'person\\\' there being threatened. Male characters, on the other hand, don\\\'t create the same sense of concern in the audience when they\\\'re threatened. Possibly because the audience only identifies with the male character to the extent that he acts and when he stops being able to act they stop identifying and can\\\'t empathize \\\'\\\'because there is nothing there to empathize with\\\'\\\'. Thus MenAreTheExpendableGender.

These, of course, are not absolute statements.

[[quoteblock]]in other words, the categorization of anything like that under Objectification is wrong.[[/quoteblock]]

[[quoteblock = \\\"in other words, the categorization of anything like that under Objectification is wrong.\\\"]]

[[blockquote]] in other words, the categorization of anything like that under Objectification is wrong.[[/blockquote]]

[[blockquote=contradictioninterms]] in other words, the categorization of anything like that under Objectification is wrong.[[/blockquote]]

[[quoteblock=contradictioninterms]] in other words, the categorization of anything like that under Objectification is wrong.[[/quoteblock]]