An observation on tropes against the Female gender

[Rahkshi500]

Uh...does the work portray the murderous person as a good person? That them being murderous is a good thing? If not, then I'm not talking about that. If so...you read some messed up stories.

I know that's not what you're talking about, but there's still a problem with your stance; in order to be critical of something, you sometimes first need to understand their audience. As the video I've linked pointed out, people have fantasies and desires that are considered unhealthy in reality and they know that. So if a work of fiction comes along that portrays that thing as "good", it's only in the sense of fulfilling people's desires rather than encouraging them to actually perform the questionable thing in real-life.

 

[Erttheking]

Uh...does the work portray the murderous person as a good person? That them being murderous is a good thing? If not, then I'm not talking about that. If so...you read some messed up stories.

I know that's not what you're talking about, but there's still a problem with your stance; in order to be critical of something, you sometimes first need to understand their audience. As the video I've linked pointed out, people have fantasies and desires that are considered unhealthy in reality and they know that. So if a work of fiction comes along that portrays that thing as "good", it's only in the sense of fulfilling people's desires rather than encouraging them to actually perform the questionable thing in real-life.

Trust me I know that, I have pretty unhealthy fantasies myself, but I think when you look at the way a work is written, you can tell if the author knows better or not. Stephine Meyer does not.

 

[Rahkshi500]

Trust me I know that, I have pretty unhealthy fantasies myself, but I think when you look at the way a work is written, you can tell if the author knows better or not. Stephine Meyer does not.

In that case, it would also be important to understand what the intent of a work of fiction is suppose to do. As you said, Stephenie Meyer did not know better, because she was honestly promoting the book as a genuine love story rather than as a catering fiction for people who have fantasies of abusive relationships but also know to separate those fantasies from reality.

What I'm getting at here is many people and critics are so often prone to jump onto something with presupposed, narrowed assumptions rather than trying to fully understand the whole thing, including audience and intent, before giving their criticism. And as I said before, if there are people who genuinely believe that an unhealthy, dangerous thing is good, then the issue is naivety.

 

[Erttheking]

Trust me I know that, I have pretty unhealthy fantasies myself, but I think when you look at the way a work is written, you can tell if the author knows better or not. Stephine Meyer does not.

In that case, it would also be important to understand what the intent of a work of fiction is suppose to do. As you said, Stephenie Meyer did not know better, because she was honestly promoting the book as a genuine love story rather than as a catering fiction for people who have fantasies of abusive relationships but also know to separate those fantasies from reality.

What I'm getting at here is many people and critics are so often prone to jump onto something with presupposed, narrowed assumptions rather than trying to fully understand the whole thing, including audience and intent, before giving their criticism. And as I said before, if there are people who genuinely believe that an unhealthy, dangerous thing is good, then the issue is naivety.

Well yeah. I would like to point out that nativity can be dangerous sometimes but if that's all your arguing than yeah, no argument.

 

[EternallyBored]

My point is the lack of the"feminist ideal" in video games isn't what's causing its lack of popularity with the female gender.

Bella is one of the worst, nearly the complete opposite of the "feminist ideal", but Twilight is insanely popular among women.

My emphasis on "commercially viable " is because if it isn't ... It's not getting made. Welcome to Capitalism.

Then you are still likely missing the point, Bella and female video game characters are criticized for largely different reasons, and the feminist critique of why women don't play more "hardcore" games generally revolves around the oversexualization and the supposition that the community is more hostile towards them, not that female game characters are weak and bland like Bella.

The only thing Twilight tells us is that women will like or tolerate a weak female character if she is a nearly blank slate audience self-insertion for a romantic story. In much the same way men will tolerate or like a weak blank slate male character because the story doesn't really hinge on them being a good character, and in some ways, they are bland in order to make it easier for the audience to identify and insert their own preferred thoughts and character traits on them.

Your idea that the lack of "feminist ideal" isn't what keeps women out of male dominated video game genres is still lacking any real point, because the feminist criticism of Bella and video games are often very different, and women liking a weak self-insert character in a romance series, likely bares very little on why not so many seem to like games with no playable female characters, potentially toxic communities, and female characters who sometimes only seem to be there to appeal to male players, the "feminist ideal" isn't really why feminists seem to think that less women play male dominated game genres, so I think I'm still confused on why you thought it was.

 

[Something Amyss]

What I'm getting at here is many people and critics are so often prone to jump onto something with presupposed, narrowed assumptions rather than trying to fully understand the whole thing, including audience and intent, before giving their criticism. And as I said before, if there are people who genuinely believe that an unhealthy, dangerous thing is good, then the issue is naivety.

In my experience, most critics aren't commenting on the author's intent. To the contrary, it's often argued that the author's intent is completely irrelevant to the end result. You don't have to specifically be racist to write a work that's racist or sexist to make a sexist movie.

The only thing Twilight tells us is that women will like or tolerate a weak female character if she is a nearly blank slate audience self-insertion for a romantic story. In much the same way men will tolerate or like a weak blank slate male character because the story doesn't really hinge on them being a good character, and in some ways, they are bland in order to make it easier for the audience to identify and insert their own preferred thoughts and character traits on them.

If anything, this should help dismiss the idea that women in games need to be done well or carefully.

My point is the lack of the"feminist ideal" in video games isn't what's causing its lack of popularity with the female gender.

When making an argument, especially when using quotes to ascribe an idea to another party, it's important to define your terms. I, for one, am very curious as a feminist to know what our ideals are.

Hell, Twilight passes the Bechdel Test.

Bella is one of the worst, nearly the complete opposite of the "feminist ideal", but Twilight is insanely popular among women.

Which brings me to the other problem: women aren't a homogenous group, either. For example, there are actually women on this forum. Who play games and stuff. And many of them don't like Twilight.

But at the same time, I have to ask, so what? Critics and film fans ***** about Transformers, and it goes largely unchallenged. I wouldn't go around saying that "boys like dumb explosion porn" as a counter to complaints about it, nor would I try and argue that Call of Duty's popularity with young boys invalidates criticism of it. Would you? Because that brings me to your other point.

My emphasis on "commercially viable " is because if it isn't ... It's not getting made. Welcome to Capitalism.

You mean like Twilight, or The Hunger Games? Hell, there was a point where superhero movies and movies like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings weren't concerned commercially viable.

More to the point, the concept of a "core" gamer" is being overwhelmed by casual/mobile/whatever games. Are you still going to be all "yay capitalism" when it no longer suits you?

Because I doubt it.

 

[Louzerman102]

I had a post typed out that was very trollish and designed to get a reaction out of people in this forum. It involved - if feminist had any sort of control over consumer spending Remember Me, Tombraider, Mirror's Edge 1, and Assassin's Creed Liberation would have made money. However I kept undercutting the bite by acknowledging that they all failed for different reasons, so I settled for this post instead.

It's important to keep in mind that critics in any of the entertainment fields are very terrible at knowing what is going to be commercially successful. The job of a critic seems to be judging the technical and thematic complexity of a piece of entertainment, something that most consumers don't really care about.

 

[C. Cain]

not really, more like, how can something offend you and yet you still watch it?

Quite easily. Not that it matters, though. My analogy is still apt, 'cause being offended doesn't factor into any of this.

maybe girls like these things because they dont see anything offensive about them, maybe they dont think the films discriminate agaisnt them...

First off, films per se do not discriminate against anybody. They may only convey discriminatory ideas.

Whether or not somebody is offended by something is not the criterion which determines whether or not this something is sexist, racist, misandrist, misogynist, misanthropist, harmful, or whatever else you want to come up with.

or maybe all the shirtless guys are brainwashing them with their abs

This dismissive little statement might be closer to the truth than you'd think. Certain romantic tropes are more popular with heterosexual females than with heterosexual males and vice versa. For the sake of brevity we will only look at heterosexual individuals in a more or less generalised manner.

Love triangles in which two physically fit males fight over one female, with the female being the self-insertion audience avatar, are very popular with women. From an evolutionary perspective this might have something to do with the fact that females are the child bearing gender. They invest heavily into their offspring in terms of fitness and have to make sure that their mate(s) have the right set of genes. Thus the scenario of two supernatural, handsome hunks fighting for their affection is the ultimate expression of this behavioural pattern. Even if it's just imaginary.

On the flipside we have the promiscuous male. The James Bond, James T. Kirk womaniser kind of guy who has another hot girl every other week. The popularity of this trope may be down to the relative lack of investment the male gender has to make when it comes to raising their offspring. If it doesn't work out you can always find another one. Nothing lost, nothing gained; quantity trumps quality in this case.

These tropes, in and of themselves, are neutral. Neither harmful, nor beneficial. It's the added cultural and societal baggage that makes them problematic. In Twilight's case it's the attachment of "purity culture" and everything that entails. Also some unfortunate implications.

 

[deadish]

When making an argument, especially when using quotes to ascribe an idea to another party, it's important to define your terms. I, for one, am very curious as a feminist to know what our ideals are.

Hell, Twilight passes the Bechdel Test.

You know, the "strong woman" that doesn't need to be rescued, is in command. You know the typical stuff Hollywood occasionally put out as "tokens" to appease these feminist critics.

Which brings me to the other problem: women aren't a homogenous group, either. For example, there are actually women on this forum. Who play games and stuff. And many of them don't like Twilight.

But at the same time, I have to ask, so what? Critics and film fans ***** about Transformers, and it goes largely unchallenged. I wouldn't go around saying that "boys like dumb explosion porn" as a counter to complaints about it, nor would I try and argue that Call of Duty's popularity with young boys invalidates criticism of it. Would you? Because that brings me to your other point.

Perhaps I'm not getting my point across here. I'm not judging the "quality" of entertainment. Just whether it's successful in pulling in a crowd (and making money).

You mean like Twilight, or The Hunger Games? Hell, there was a point where superhero movies and movies like Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings weren't concerned commercially viable.

More to the point, the concept of a "core" gamer" is being overwhelmed by casual/mobile/whatever games. Are you still going to be all "yay capitalism" when it no longer suits you?

Because I doubt it.

When did I mention anything about "core gamer" or whatever?

All I'm saying is, if you want more females buying games, all the huffing and puffing about BS like not enough "strong female characters" and the presence of fanservice big boob females, is barking up the wrong tree. Sure big boob females characters don't necessarily appeal to women, excluding lesbians, but I believe the problem is less "undesirable content" and more the lack of "desirable content".

"undesirable content" = I don't really know, I'm not female. I used "big boob female" because that seem to get complained a lot about by feminists, something about objectifying women ... although a heck of a lot of Shojo manga targeted at the female gender actually has quite a few (very) big boob females, e.g. Kanoe (X 1999)

"desirable content" = pretty boys mostly ... sparkling vampires, boy-bandish characters ...

 

[deadish]

generally revolves around the oversexualization and the supposition that the community is more hostile towards them, not that female game characters are weak and bland like Bella.

This the thing, is oversexualization really a factor that is killing game sales to the female gender? Or is it something everyone thinks is killing games sales and is being blown up like it's a big deal because feminists jump to conclusions about the intention of the creators of said games? (sorry for run on sentence)

Hostile online community? Welcome to the Internet. Racists and bigots of every kind roam it.

But I have to say, the attack on the industry by feminists isn't helping. All it does is it puts the entire community, sexist or otherwise, on the defensive.

 

[Something Amyss]

You know, the "strong woman" that doesn't need to be rescued, is in command. You know the typical stuff Hollywood occasionally put out as "tokens" to appease these feminist critics.

I don't think you've managed to give a particularly useful definition. I'm not even particularly sure what the "typical stuff" is, since "in command" has never been a requirement of any feminist critic I've followed. Anita Sarkeesian included.

Perhaps I'm not getting my point across here. I'm not judging the "quality" of entertainment. Just whether it's successful in pulling in a crowd (and making money).

No, you were perfectly clear. The fact is, aside from the part about women not being a homogenous group, this isn't a "female" thing or a "feminist" thing or whatever else.

Again, so what, and how does that relate to games?

When did I mention anything about "core gamer" or whatever?

I didn't say you did, but you did address it in one of your more recent comments in another thread (the NPD thread). It's only slightly reworded. You've gone from "companies go where the money is" there to "welcome to capitalism" here. However, that's not a necessity for the point to be relevant. As the "core gamer" becomes a smaller and smaller chunk of the gamer base, are you still going to be all "yay capitalism?"

All I'm saying is, if you want more females buying games, all the huffing and puffing about BS like not enough "strong female characters" and the presence of fanservice big boob females, is barking up the wrong tree.

And I go back to my previous statement about Hunger Games, et al.

But again, you seem to be operating from the assumption that women are a collective. That women who are Twilight fans are necessarily the ones in gaming, or who would be drawn to gaming.

 

[Something Amyss]

if it doesnt offend you why do you complain about it?

Applying that logic, does that mean you're actually offended by feminism?

 

[Grumman]

I had a post typed out that was very trollish and designed to get a reaction out of people in this forum. It involved - if feminist had any sort of control over consumer spending Remember Me, Tombraider, Mirror's Edge 1, and Assassin's Creed Liberation would have made money. However I kept undercutting the bite by acknowledging that they all failed for different reasons, so I settled for this post instead.

Tomb Raider didn't fail. Square Enix were just being passive-aggressive jerkbags and trying to pretend that it didn't /really/ succeed unless it sold eleventy quadrillion copies.

 

[deadish]

You know, the "strong woman" that doesn't need to be rescued, is in command. You know the typical stuff Hollywood occasionally put out as "tokens" to appease these feminist critics.

I don't think you've managed to give a particularly useful definition. I'm not even particularly sure what the "typical stuff" is, since "in command" has never been a requirement of any feminist critic I've followed. Anita Sarkeesian included.

Perhaps I'm not getting my point across here. I'm not judging the "quality" of entertainment. Just whether it's successful in pulling in a crowd (and making money).

No, you were perfectly clear. The fact is, aside from the part about women not being a homogenous group, this isn't a "female" thing or a "feminist" thing or whatever else.

Again, so what, and how does that relate to games?

When did I mention anything about "core gamer" or whatever?

I didn't say you did, but you did address it in one of your more recent comments in another thread (the NPD thread). It's only slightly reworded. You've gone from "companies go where the money is" there to "welcome to capitalism" here. However, that's not a necessity for the point to be relevant. As the "core gamer" becomes a smaller and smaller chunk of the gamer base, are you still going to be all "yay capitalism?"

All I'm saying is, if you want more females buying games, all the huffing and puffing about BS like not enough "strong female characters" and the presence of fanservice big boob females, is barking up the wrong tree.

And I go back to my previous statement about Hunger Games, et al.

But again, you seem to be operating from the assumption that women are a collective. That women who are Twilight fans are necessarily the ones in gaming, or who would be drawn to gaming.

My main point is, if you want more women in gaming, you got to cater to them.

HOWEVER, what feminists are tell us that women want, may not actually be what they want.

Feminist go on and on about strong women characters. Bella is a counter-example that disproves the notion that games (and their stories) must have strong female characters to pull in a female crowd.

You are correct, women aren't a collective. But neither do feminists speak for all women. In fact, I would argue feminists speak for a relatively small minority. The majority who make million dollar budget productions viable probably don't have the same "concerns" as these outspoken feminists.

Again, I'm not sure why you keep bring up the "core gamer" thing. It has nothing to do with this. My thread was about bringing women into gaming and how we might be barking up the wrong tree.

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

(...) People don't follow that advice when they criticize CoD, or reality television, or Big Bang Theory, all popular titles criticized for being bad for various reasons (...)

are you seriously implying something is bad because is not feminist?

(...)

I'm not EternallyBored, but two things:

Firstly, no, that's not what s/he seems to be implying. S/He's criticising the concept of argumentum ad populum. I.e. popularity and quality are not causally related.

Secondly, I can only speak for myself, but yes. Things are bad because they are not feminist (feminism being defined as advocating and supporting the rights and equality of women).

besides, what i think the OP means is that, how can something be sexist, and at the same time be largely enjoyed by the people towards it is supposedly sexist

That's exactly what EternallyBored is addressing.

Either way, how can something be bad for your health and at the same time be largely enjoyed by the people towards it is supposedly harmful?

not really, more like, how can something offend you and yet you still watch it?

maybe girls like these things because they dont see anything offensive about them, maybe they dont think the films discriminate agaisnt them...

or maybe all the shirtless guys are brainwashing them with their abs

Because a lot of girls don't see Edward's behavior as abusive and stalkerish. And that scares the shit out of me.

dude you dont get to tell people how they should feel, thats insane

I'm sorry, but if a woman thinks that Edward Cullen being an abusive stalker asshole is hot, then she is ignorant to the ways of the world. The "It's their opinion" defense only goes so far. For example, (You're gonna hate me for using such an extreme example but I'm sticking by my guns) a Muslim man not feeling any guilt for murdering his daughter after she was raped. WHICH HAPPENS! A LOT!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/meimei-fox/the-horror-of-honor-killi_b_5826286.html

I don't care if that's the way he thinks, the way he thinks is WRONG!

There are women in the world that think when they get raped it was THEIR fault! Is that just the way they think!?

dude:

a) you are talking about freakin' murder

b) twilight is fiction, fantasy, a complete fabrication, why shouldnt people indulge in their fantasies?

My point still stands. There are plenty of people who consider unhealthy habits to be perfectly normal, and I'm not about to tip toe around it just because it's the way they think.

Because something fiction is not an excuse to paint something bad as something good. To pull out a random example, a Cuban friend of mine had the displeasure of reading a horribly written fanficiton, that ended with a full on government take over. Without the consent or knowledge of the people. By an outside source. Presented as a GOOD thing. He went ballistic because it was romanticizing the same shit his parents had to flee their home country to get away from. It shows what people to find acceptable, and it scares the shit out of me that Stephine Meyer is saying "Being abused it ok if the person doing it to you is really hot". I'm not advocating for censorship, but if you think that Twilight isn't promoting unhealthy ideas, then you are wrong.

you kill people/mosnters/something in like 90% of video games, and movies also often involve killings and/or violence

and yet you dont see people going on a killing spree over that, if virtual killings arent unhealthy, virtual sexism, must be the same

And most of the time they have the people being killed be murderous assholes (Thus their killings are justified), or they have the person doing the killing BE a murderous asshole (Thus they're not like us and we shouldn't aspire to be like them). You will never see a game where a person runs down the street, gunning people down, and have him being portrayed as an un-ironic good guy that we should aspire to be like. That's the difference between the two, the way the narrative frames it. Meanwhile, Twilight, Edward's behavior is portrayed as completely normal and healthy, so unless you already knew to keep an eye out for it, you might think it really is normal and healthy. The most effective kind of propaganda is the most effective one. (Also, does all propaganda ever not work?)

Pretty sure you just pulled a logical fallacy there mate. It's called false equivalence. Different situations, different circumstances, different outcomes.

is not a false equivalence mate, the bottom line of your argument is that the portrayal of something in a piece of fiction can affect someone's behaviour in real life

also check carefully games with violence, in some of them, the hero is shown using excessive force or taking the violent route before trying any other way to solve a problem, violence is glorified, the ultimate justice bringer, when in real life, that just isnt the case

people arent stupid mate, we know the difference between fiction and reality, or atleast most of us do

 

[WarpedLord]

I just a minor revelation.

Bella from Twilight will give most feminist fits. She is everything someone like Anita Sarkeesian will hate.

Yet, Bella and the Twilight series is immensely popular among the female gender. Twilight, and by extension the character Bella, is commercially viable - the operative phrase being "commercially viable".

This isn't a case of the bad male gender oppressing the female gender. Twilight was written by a women - a now very wealthy women. Males aren't the ones dragging females to these movies to be "educated", rather it's girlfriends that are dragging their reluctant boyfriends and daughters dragging their fathers to these movies.

In the light of all this, perhaps SJW are barking up the wrong tree if they are interested in getting more of the female gender into gaming.

Um... Anita made a video about why we should all hate Twilight ages ago. What's your point?

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

how can something that apparently offends its target audience be so popular?

Why the eff do people assume it 'offends' them? I can argue against sexism in video games any day without being offended by it. I don't like it, I want things to get better, this does not imply that I'm offended in any bloody way.

if it doesnt offend you why do you complain about it?

be better? i dont think girls who watch twilight care at all

Because you can complain about things for other reasons than being personally offended by them? I'm not sure why that's hard to grasp? When I say a character or story element sucks, there is usually an element of dislike, but there is no requirement for it, and there is especially no requirement to be offended by it, it can come from a dispassionate standpoint or even one where you like the element being complained about but still see why it doesn't fit with the rest of the work as a whole.

As for the second line, I don't think Kasp cares what other girls think is ok or not, it's how he/she wants the book to be better, other girls not caring is irrelevant to the point. I don't care what other White Male 20-somethings think about CoD when I criticize it, I want what I see as its pervasive and negative influence on the over-abundance of shooters in the AAA industry to be pointed out.

Now, just because I say that, doesn't make my criticism sacrosanct or automatically indisputable and unassailable either, people are free to think and argue against my points, just as they are free to argue against criticisms in the Twilight series, one does not invalidate or reduce the other.

the way i see it, people complain about racism and sexism because is offensive, because racist and sexist treat people like sub-human or second class citizens based on things completely out of their control

if you are not offended, could this mean that you dont feel treated badly?

you can hate the character all you like, god knows a lot of people do, but calling them sexist is going too far

That's where difference of opinion comes in, and feminist critique of Twilight is hardly uniform, despite what the OP might think, not every feminist sees Bella and Edward as the epitome of anti-feminist characterization. People criticize popular things all the time, and it may not automatically validate their criticism, but a work being popular amongst a female target audience does not somehow invalidate or reduce feminist critique of its elements either. This is where the OP is off with his/her original observation

oh...

so the opinion of women doesnt matter when it comes to making a feminist critique of something? am sorry, did you read what you just wrote?

White Male 20-somethings think about CoD when I criticize it

isnt this racist tough?

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

if it doesnt offend you why do you complain about it?

be better? i dont think girls who watch twilight care at all

... Why shouldn't I? Am I only allowed to criticise things if I'm offended by them? I regard certain issues as problematic without being offended by it, amazing, eh?

How better? By shutting up because it makes you feel better?

not all all, you can critize things all you want

but it doesnt sound right to accuse of offensiveness things that dont actually offend you

i mean, i assume you find sexism offensive

 

[NuclearKangaroo]

surely the most extremist defenders of social justice will bark some stupid garbage like "they have internalized oppression" or something like that

its called internalised misogyny

and I'd say Twilight is an example of "people sometimes like stupid things" see also: michael bays transformers

sometimes it is good to indulge in the stupid, its entertainment, it can be mindless