Writing about gender, power, and privilege

Game Development
21

How about we try a civil exchange of views on a topic that’s popped up on a couple of threads?

Reasonably often, one of us tosses off a complaint that a female character in a comic book or movie is portrayed as a sex object. This sometimes draws the response, “She’s been written to be attractive – what’s wrong with that?” Or, “So would it be better if the characters were portrayed as wholly unsexy/sexless?”

To me, when I complain that a character is a sex object, I mean at least one of a couple things. First, that she’s been written with too little personality or power. Second, that she’s been portrayed in ways that say “the purpose of my body is male pleasure” – e.g. the stereotype female superhero with ginormous, gravity-defying breasts permanently upthrust toward the viewer, improbably skinny waist, wholly impractical costume, and inexplicable come-hither poses.

On the second issue, though, what I just described is an extreme – one that I think a growing number of comic artists and filmmakers have become embarrassed by (as people have called them on their shit) and toned down. And I think that as we move away from that extreme, there’s a big gray area where people of goodwill can disagree about whether a physically attractive character is actually being shown in a way that objectifies her.

For me, the first issue is usually the clincher. Does the character get a name, or a personality beyond a stereotype or two? Does she have meaningful relationships – especially with other female characters? Is she as effective as the male characters? Does she make decisions, or just react to male ones? Does her sexiness (if she’s sexy) flow out of her personality in a way that makes sense with her job/background?

Sure, in a lot of these comics or movies, even the male characters aren’t super-deep – but they’re given more personality, more motivations, more things to talk about. In other words, they’re written as characters to identify with; the female characters are written simply as objects of (het male) desire. The more you can identify with the female characters, the less I’d be inclined to call them sex objects.

Thoughts from others? Links to other interesting thoughts on this issue?

22

@Havenstone I pretty much agree with your assessment.

I would like to add that determining whether a female character is a sex object or not can be done by comparing her to her male counterparts. If all the male characters are fully clothed and spend all their time doing stuff, while there’s a woman who is wearing sexy clothing that shows cleavage (especially if she is dressed like this when it would be impractical or inappropriate) and spends all her time in awe of the incredible things that her male companions are doing then she is probably a sex object. This is especially the case if the camera spends a lot of time pointed at her arse or chest.

However, this is not to say that the portrayal of sexually attractive women is inherently a bad thing. If, for example, you have a soldier who wears a proper uniform with a helmet plus a set of outline concealing armour and fatigues during combat, but then goes to a nightclub in a tube top and a miniskirt, she is probably not a sex object, because she is wearing outfits that are appropriate to the situations she is in. If this soldier were to go into combat in a tube top and miniskirt, however, that would almost definitely make her a sex object (Unless she was ambushed or something, and didn’t have time to get into her gear - though this situation is likely so contrived that it wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny). On top of all this you should be watching out for power imbalances. If the women in the story carry a pistols around all the time while the men carry assault rifles, there’s something up even if the ladies aren’t being sexualised.

Edit: I should probably start proof-reading my comments before I click ‘Post Comment’.

23

Personally, if you want a game to be realistic, and the only way to do that is to be slightly sexist, then do it. But make sure people understand that it s because you really want realisticness. That’s what I would do.

24

@Epicazeroth I am of the opinion that realism is an insufficient excuse for bigotry. Unless you’re recounting actual historical fact, all discrimination should be excluded from media, unless specifically intended to teach a lesson about why discrimination is bad. That’s my opinion, at least.

When I play games, watch films or read books, it’s because I want to get away from how awful the real world is, not be reminded of the worst aspects of it.

2 Likes
25

And yet avoiding and ignoring it doesnt change it. Whether liked or not, it’s our heritage and important to understand who we are. It’s only when we see ourselves that we can change

26

@Canisa mentions what is essentially the heart of the argument (and it’s the point that I think men often times miss, or misunderstand). The sexuality of a character is not the issue. In fact, the sexuality of the character is, essentially, a complete non-issue. It’s not their sexuality of a character, it’s how their sexuality is treated fundamentally differently from other characters and used to define them, and, in addition to the more commonly recognized, removing the character from any central importance of the story, and regulating them to a sex object.

Let’s take a character to use as an example. How about Major Kusanagi Motoko (specifically focusing on the anime)? (I picked her because I think we have a lot anime lovers here, and for those that don’t know her, there’s a plethora of readily available information, plus she’s a character I’m very familiar with.) She’s the focus of the series, plus she’s faster, stronger, smarter, more determined, and arguably ‘deeper’ than any other character in the stories. Clearly this makes her a strong female character, right? Well, what do you remember about her besides those things? Maybe her outfit in the first season, that skimpy ‘leotard’? How about what she did? How often did she play a honeypot? What about her, ah, preference in ‘company’, namely her ‘sleepovers’ with other women? While there are legitimately gay character, was her portrayal in such situations anything more than fan service? While these things don’t destroy her otherwise strong characterization, they function to weaken it. They are unnecessary, and therefore ‘over’ sexualization. (The second season, IIRC tones down a few of these things, most notably in that her outfit, while still worn a little more sexually than the men’s, is ultimately the same uniform. Did anyone look at that and complain that’s ‘shes not the same’? Sure, some people probably complained that she wasn’t as ‘sexy’, but did anyone say ‘she’s less believable now’? What about if her outfit change had gone in the other direction? And IIRC Batou get a little more sexualized with tighter tank tops and generally more focus on his body, although I think it was mostly used in highlighting the difference between him and Motoko.)

How about we take another character? We’ll use a Lifetime Movie heroine (it doesn’t matter which Lifetime Movie, the vast majority of them are ultimately the same story). She’s single (usually divorced), struggles to make ends meet, has a child (or, rarely, another type of ward) and she has a problem. She struggles with her problem, and eventually overcomes it. To top it off, the movies are aimed at women, so she’s rarely (if ever) highly sexualized (although she always looks good). That’s a perfect formula for a good strong female character, right? Well, let’s take a closer look at the average Lifetime Movie plot. First, there are a few scenes which set up the woman as being a struggling single mom/whatever characteristic she has that you’re supposed to identify with. Then she meets a man. Then, if not already brought up, we see what difficulty she will face the movie. If it has not already been brought out, we then find out that the man works in a field that lets him help to fix her problem. Then the two of them have a short ‘will they or won’t they’ bit before getting together, usually with the woman leaving and the man chasing her. Finally, soon (or immediately) after they get together, she has her final confrontation with the main antagonist (who is virtually always male). In this confrontation she finds that she is unable to beat the antagonist until the man comes and rescues her. What’s this sound like to you? Man meets woman, man loses woman, man finds woman, man fights for woman. This is simply the standard hetero-normative story, albeit with the possibility of a few small quirks, from the female perspective. (My wife mentioned that they are slowly starting to drift away from this formula a little, but still, you see the pattern laid out.)

These two examples are (IMO) the two largest, most prevalent, and easiest traps to fall into when attempting to make a strong female character. The first is a strong character, weakened by reducing her to simple fanservice. The second is a character who may at first appear strong, but ultimately plays second fiddle to a male character.

(Quick Clarification: I’m using the term ‘sexuality’ above with the definition of ‘the state or quality of being sexual’, not the more commonly used definition of ‘sexual orientation’)

1 Like
27

@Raven You’re not understanding the point of escapism. Shit already exist and we DO talk about it ALL THE TIME. It’s fucking tiring. Sometimes, we just want to go somewhere we don’t have to deal with it. It’s really quite simple.

28

@ScarletGeisha and @Canisa I think this is a matter of major taste difference. Some people (including myself) don’t actually want escapist fiction. They want stories that actually addresses issues. And sometimes, it’s not about addressing issues as a main point of the story, such as 1984 and government control, or Fahrenheit 451 and freedom of speech. Sometimes (to those of us that don’t want escapist fiction) it’s the little things. When I read/watch/play a story set in the Wild West, it annoys me to see ‘every race just kinda gets along’ bits. Sure, they often times worked together a little more, and didn’t always try to kill each other, but that doesn’t mean that the average while person didn’t consider the American Indian, or Chinese people they met to be sub-human. Sometimes that form of escapism (to those of us that a naturally inclined to not like it) feels dangerously close to revisionism.

(Do note that I’m only describing my personal opinion here. There are many different reasons why people don’t like one kind of a story over another.)

29

@Reaperoa Exactly. I like realism ove escapism. Escaping from problems is nice and all, but they cant be changed unless realistically depicted. Though I would maybe disagree with putting them in as “right”

30

Realism, if it neccessary to the setting, should be more important than political corectness, as long as the game does not support such ideas, maybe leaving it to the villain to have these traits. Also, if the author would be obligated to put in something is outside there comfort zone is another reason they might chose to stay away from adding a gender option (such as Vendetta). Now I am no programmer, but I assume it would be very difficult to code such a option into a longer game, such as having to wok with pronouns and such

31

@Person Whether or not it’s difficult to include a gender choice has already been discussed to death here. Some say it does, some say it doesn’t. Both sides have valid points. We’re leaving it at that.

32

I’m with those who favor realism over political correctness. The willing suspension of disbelief is a necessity in good fiction. Few things pop me out of a story faster then reading yet another white-washed utopianist view of feudal society that is totally lacking in the societal structures needed to support the very modernist characters that are supposedly living in it. I don’t have the slightest issue with a gender-equal, or even a matriarchal society in literature, but it needs to be believable and internally consistent, and that means the author needs to put some thought into how a less than modern society got that way and what is keeping it that way.

33

I agree P_Tigras, no offense to those of you whom enjoy escapism in a better more perfect universe, but I feel Realism is also a highly needed element.

34

For me, I have trouble escaping in a world that’s clearly implausible and/or inconsistent. I can’t escape if I can’t suspend disbelief.

35

@Canisa: What I meant was, if you’re writing about, say Ancient Egypt, it would be weird to write about a woman ruling at a point where it is known that a man was Pharoah. Or, if it’s during a time when women were (regrettably) treated differently, and if the character doesn’t believe in equal rights, then the character wouldn’t treat women equally (also, regrettably).

36

@Reaperoa, you’ve inspired me to try my hand at Choice of Wild West Writing.


*choice 
  #1.1 Make everyone get along easily, except maybe a few over-the-top racist villains.
    Congratulations!  You've made America's genocidal westward expansion seem like a broadly heroic enterprise, only marred by a few bad apples.
  #1.2 Be honest to the real-world racism, exploitation, and mass murder.
    OK, Gritty McNasty, but will you...
    *choice
      #2.1 Have the racism etc. just be background color to add some realism.  You aren't writing "about" it, you don't want to comment on it, you just want to be true to the period.
        Cool.  Your otherwise sympathetic protagonists are authentic to their time, and treat American Indians, blacks, and Chinese people as less than human.  (Because obviously, if you've picked this choice, you're writing about the cowboys).  And... well, that's it.  Guess it's not worth trying to flesh out those other characters at all, or suggest that they're more than their stereotypes.  They're just here to add, er, color.
      #2.2 Try to write a story that comments on it at least a little.
        All righty, Sheriff P.C. Wellmeaning, which brings us to...
        *choice
          #3.1 Racism kills people and ruins lives.  My story is going to show how bad racists are.  Most people will be racists, and every racist will be a villain.  The racists lose, the oppressed win.  Yay!
            See, you've got this hammer.  This big, impossible-to-miss hammer of righteousness.  And I agree with you, but... your story is hitting it repeatedly against my head.
          #3.2 I'm going to write a story set in a time of racism, exploitation, and mass murder... and whether or not that's what the story is <i>about</i>, I'll convey through the characters and their relationships both how it's possible for privileged people to buy into all that shit, <i>and</i> how oppressed groups respond to it, resist it, and have lives apart from it... and I'll write in a way that maintains their dignity, and everyone's humanity.
            Good luck, Long-in-the-Wind
1 Like
37

Or in other words, every way you can try to write something has its pitfalls, and I don’t think it boils down to a distinction quite as simple as “realist” v “escapist”. :slight_smile:

38

That’s an awfully pessimistic interpretation.

39

Just because you include racism in a story it doesn’t need to play a big role in the game.
Just a comment like ‘‘Damn red hound, savages every single one of them’’ from a colonist who just survived a raid or you hear a shopkeeper saying ‘‘I ain’t giving a single job to any of them Irish, apes every single one of them.’’ is enough for me at least to feel the bigotry from an everyday person and get the feeling that I actually am in an environment where close minded comments like that was acceptable.

I at least feel that small instances like that are enough, but I do understand if other people think you either need to write it in all it’s gruesome realism or try to make it so that everyone get along except those dreaded villains.

1 Like
40

Speaking of ancient Egypt, allow me to start by saying that I don’t have an issue with the possibility of one woman managing to claw her way to the top. Just look at Hetepshut. What I do have an issue with is when events like that are depicted as the norm, or no big deal. Unless she’s ruling temporarily as regent on behalf of her under-age son, or as a co-ruler under an even more powerful husband who values and trusts her wisdom, such a situation is dependent on both a confluence of unique events and a very special woman being present at the confluence of those events. Despite ancient Egypt’s several thousand year history, that event was highly rare, and aside from Hetepshut, the others generally didn’t rule for long on their own before being toppled or forced to marry their successor. This is why Hetepshut makes for such a fascinating case study.

Interestingly enough, by Reaperoa’s earlier definition of strong women, Cleopatra wouldn’t count because she falls into the lifetime movie trap. She’d have lost her war with her brother had she not, as the story goes, had her naked body rolled up in a carpet and delivered to Julius Caear as a gift. She was always dependent upon a strong Roman man with a very large army, whether that man was Julius Caesar or Marc Antony. After Caesar’s assassination she seduced his right hand man, Marc Antony. Unfortunately for her, her new man didn’t have his predecessor’s military brilliance. So when her man was defeated by Octavian, she lost her life as well, and Egypt lost its independence. Her power was thus always primarily based on her hold on the heart of an even more powerful man.

Let me further add, that the Ptolemaic Dynasty of which Cleopatra was the last ruling member, was of Greek origin, not native Egyptian, having ruled over Egypt following its conquest by Alexander the Great. The women who ruled in that dynasty did so as co-rulers with their husbands, fathers, brothers or sons. (Usually their fathers or brothers were their husbands!) Typically, unless he was a minor, it was the man who held the real power. Cleopatra got into trouble initially because she didn’t want to play second fiddle to her 13 year old co-ruler husband, who also happened to be her younger brother. (Not that I blame her for disliking the situation into which she had been stuck.) She’d have lost and died were it not for her seduction of Julius Caesar. In the end she still lost and died, but to Octavian (aka Caesar Augustus, the first Roman Emperor) two decades later, not to her younger brother.