• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Women in fantasy

Status
Not open for further replies.

bjza

Dreamer
Speculation can go both ways, fair enough. Regardless, weathering internet harassment is not a qualification for sainthood. Nor does it make her opinions sacrosanct, or even correct.
Except for the part of her argument claiming that women are being objectified. The out-of-proportion rape threats maybe kinda count as evidence there.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Except for the part of her argument claiming that women are being objectified. The out-of-proportion rape threats maybe kinda count as evidence there.

Yeah, but that happens. Scroll through the comments on any controversial post on the internet, and unless the moderators are good, people of all colors are vicious and cruel and threatening against everyone for everything. Using those kinds of comments as proof of an argument doesn't prove anything except that people are exceptional at finding ways to be nasty.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
She makes good points in her video, however. Most of the counter to it is base din ad-hominem attacks or blanket dismissals without even a fraction of the support she offers for her own viewpoint in the videos. If someone puts together a well-supported refutation, I'd be interested in seeing it.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
She makes good points in her video, however. Most of the counter to it is base din ad-hominem attacks or blanket dismissals without even a fraction of the support she offers for her own viewpoint in the videos. If someone puts together a well-supported refutation, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Didn't I make a whole bunch of points about the video already, like how those games have to find motivation in ten seconds or less, or how the games which actually develop storylines have plenty of well-developed heroines and women still don't play them?

To that I could add, Zelda for instance is not "the helpful princess," but the title character of the series. Making her playable would mean killing her personality and stripping her of dialogue - ala Link - because that's what they do to playable characters so that you as a player can feel like things are happening to you.

And of course, anyone who understands marketing would tell you that there are games targeting women - and that's why she's playing them. The weirdest thing is, despite all the complaints, there are many, many women who do not like other women, so having a female protagonist often does not mean drawing women as an audience. On the other hand, having a hero with feminine features often counters that, and that's why Link looks like Peter Pan, a male character who's often played in theaters by a woman.

If anything the video shows a rampant misunderstanding of the gaming industry. For instance, Nintendo cannot easily put Princess Peach in a mainline mario game. As she mentions in the video, Peach is established, now, as having the "awesome ability to float," so Nintendo's choices are to make her imbalanced and gamebreaking, or disappointingly lacking her signature traits.

Besides which, if you talk about Princess Peach as a model for women, is Mario really any less of a stereotype? If you think about Zelda, is wordless Link any preferable? And don't these games teach men to fight for the women they care about?

She makes it out to be the journey of Barney, finding a girl and making a conquest not caring about who she is or what she says, but as a guy who's played these games, I can tell you: It's much closer to the emotional journey of Ted, who's girl has no lines because you haven't met her yet.
 
Last edited:

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Devor, all I see are a bunch of rationalizations with a "No True Scotsman" sort of fallacy thrown in for good measure. None of what you wrote counters the point made that the tropes are widespread or even dominant in the industry. You seem to concede that point, while providing a series of rationales as to why the gaming industry has to be that way. I don't buy it. If a game with a female MC is unsuccessful, it's because the MC is female (if it is not because of that, it is irrelevant to the current discussion). Females are catty bitches who won't want to play female characters anyway? That seems a bit of an overstatement. Your arguments amount to an assertion than the gaming industry can't be any other way than it is, for a variety of reasons, but the assertions aren't supported by anything other than opinion (and the aforementioned fallacy).

If nothing else, I guess you and Sarkeesian agree that the damsel in distress trope is widespread.
 

Nihal

Vala
I know many women who play games. Few of them play with male characters when they can. The top reasons are: Avoid harassment (when online) or be able to stare at a fine exemplar of the opposite sex (which is one of the top reasons for males playing female avatars as well). I have yet to hear a woman who doesn't play female characters because they "don't like other women".

Sometimes they think twice about playing female characters because for some unknown reason the game developers like to pick high pitched voice actresses and no one can stand an hour of 4-years-old annoying shrieks (unless you picked the gender/race just to annoy your friends, heh). But it's a game design flaw, it's not due the character gender.

Speaking of solo games, I don't think Chell being a female kept people from playing Portal. She's a silent protagonist, yes, so what? That's how the game was design, regardless of the gender of the MC. That's how it was supposed to be.
 

Mindfire

Istar
She makes good points in her video, however. Most of the counter to it is base din ad-hominem attacks or blanket dismissals without even a fraction of the support she offers for her own viewpoint in the videos. If someone puts together a well-supported refutation, I'd be interested in seeing it.

With regard to her damsels in distress videos specifically, she outright ignores context in favor of cherry-picking things that support her views. For example, "damsel" characters are overwhelmingly not the main character. (Except for Zelda, who's pretty central to the mythos of her series and even has her name in the title, which is a completely different counter-argument.) So complaining that these characters aren't given enough focus kind of misses the point. Secondary characters will be developed less than the main character. That's what "secondary" means. And in the early days of gaming from which titles like Mario hail, due to hardware limitations character development was pretty spare for everyone, so I'm not sure what she was expecting. Furthermore, she admits to outright ignoring all games in which Peach is playable and/or has a large role because they're "not part of the real Mario series, so they don't count." "No true Scotsman" much?
 

Mindfire

Istar
Here are a few youtube videos that argue against Sarkeesian. The youtuber that made them is a bit of a dick sometimes but he does do some research.

Feminism versus FACTS (RE Damsel in distress) - YouTube
Feminism versus FACTS (Part 2) - YouTube
Feminism versus FACTS (Part 3, RE Damsel in distress II) - YouTube

Cursory observation: I don't like the title of the videos. "Feminism vs. Facts" sounds like the entire movement is on trial rather than Sarkeesian's personal brand of it. When it comes to something as disparate and almost hydra-like as feminism, generalizations are often counterproductive and unhelpful I've found (by experience). This makes me less than optimistic that these videos can adequately rebut Sarkeesian, but I'll watch them and see.
 

Penpilot

Staff
Article Team
Cursory observation: I don't like the title of the videos. "Feminism vs. Facts" sounds like the entire movement is on trial rather than Sarkeesian's personal brand of it.

In the video the tells why he's using the title. It's in response to her title Tropes vs Women.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
Here are a few youtube videos that argue against Sarkeesian. The youtuber that made them is a bit of a dick sometimes but he does do some research.


Feminism versus FACTS (RE Damsel in distress) - YouTube
Feminism versus FACTS (Part 2) - YouTube
Feminism versus FACTS (Part 3, RE Damsel in distress II) - YouTube

I saw those when they were first published. They're interesting, but as I recall the author's seemed to make the point that if there wasn't some conscious conspiracy going on among game makers, then the patterns of tropes didn't exist (or at least didn't matter). I don't think that follows.
 

saellys

Inkling
The weirdest thing is, despite all the complaints, there are many, many women who do not like other women, so having a female protagonist often does not mean drawing women as an audience. On the other hand, having a hero with feminine features often counters that, and that's why Link looks like Peter Pan, a male character who's often played in theaters by a woman.

This is one of the most illogical statements I've encountered on this forum so far.

Firstly, yes, internalized misogyny and girl-hate is an issue. It's an issue I frequently encounter in the gaming/geek communities, where Special Snowflake Syndrome ("I'm not like other girls!") afflicts some of the more vocal gamer girls, thereby skewing perceptions. What I mean by that is that I know loads of gamer girls who aren't swimming in internalized misogyny or priding themselves on being "one of the guys" or suffering from SSS, but they're not vocal about it so all I really hear about in the bigger picture is the ones who are.

Now, all of that being said, the fact that you seem to draw from this some justification for leaving female protagonists out of games utterly flabbergasts me. I can guarantee you that the women who will say "Ugh, a female protagonist? I hate women and I wouldn't touch this game with a ten-foot pole!" are vastly outnumbered by the women who will say "Finally, a new game with a female protagonist! I can't wait to play it." (See also: me, squeeing with excitement about the Gone Home release next week.)

Not to mention the male audience. This might shock you, but a lot of men would and do play games with female protagonists. I have yet to encounter "drawing women as an audience" as primary justification for making a game with a female protagonist, and that suggests to me questionable motives, so the whole basis of that argument is extremely suspect to me.

Now, on to Peter Pan. He's often played in theaters by a woman because he's a perpetually-adolescent boy, not because he has "feminine" features. And as for Link, having a male protagonist with whatever miscellaneous aspects you consider "feminine" doesn't actually counter anything, because it's still a male protagonist. All that means is that boys with similar body types (Zelda's target audience) get to see themselves represented, whereas girls get essentially nothing.
 

Jabrosky

Banned
Not to mention the male audience. This might shock you, but a lot of men would and do play games with female protagonists.
I am one of these dudes. In fact whenever I play an RPG where you get to customize the player character's appearance, 9/10ths of the time I play a girl. I like role-playing as the opposite sex for some reason.
 

A. E. Lowan

Forum Mom
Leadership
And as for Link, having a male protagonist with whatever miscellaneous aspects you consider "feminine" doesn't actually counter anything, because it's still a male protagonist. All that means is that boys with similar body types (Zelda's target audience) get to see themselves represented, whereas girls get essentially nothing.

Not to mention the fact that adult Link is a screaming hottie, if you're into pretty boys. But, I digress to my happy place...

Being a female gamer (wait, gotta check... yup, they're still there), I can only speak for myself and the other gamer girls I know, but just about female gamer I know prefers to play female toons. Even with the rampant sexual harassment that abounds in MMORPGs, I prefer to be a girl. The only female gamer I know who prefers to play male toons is my writer partner (not because she has some sort of femme-hate or anything, she's just more comfortable that way), but she stopped because male players are HORRIBLE to other players they think are male. I'd rather get players banned for hitting on me than put up with the range of name calling those poor boys suffer from. And, trust me, once I establish my rep on a server, it takes a very brave soul indeed to try me.

As for console games, I like rp's that have the option to play a female character, like Fable and Jade Empire and KOTOR. There's just something so fun about being pretty as well as bad a**! That might not very terribly feminist, but I like it.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
Devor, all I see are a bunch of rationalizations with a "No True Scotsman" sort of fallacy thrown in for good measure.

I was responding as much to your statement that every response you've seen was an ad-hominem attack. The fact that we've been through this before without my making such claims proves your statement patently false, and that you would be expected to know so.

It's a major issue in this conversation, I think, to characterize everyone who disagrees with something as making dirty nasty bigoted attacks. I find that attitude reprehensible on a personal level.


None of what you wrote counters the point made that the tropes are widespread or even dominant in the industry. You seem to concede that point, while providing a series of rationales as to why the gaming industry has to be that way.

Is it a straw man or a red herring to say that just the use of the trope is the point of the video which needs to be responded to?

I was responding to three points:
- Is the damsel-in-distress overused.
- Is the damsel-in-distress derogatory to women.
- Are the particular instances of the damsel-in-distress which she focuses on insulting to women.

Is it overused? It was radically overused for a while, like many fads in gaming. That's what I said the first time around. But it was never as omnipresent as it's being portrayed, and a great many games have female characters who are well-developed. I said at least that second part both times, and this plays into Mindfire's charge that she's cherry-picking her data. There are many, many games which treat women well.

Is it derogatory to women? I responded to that as well. She characterizes it as portraying women as a trophy, a prize to be won, with no character or personality of her own. I argued that it's not like that. For a guy playing those games, it's usually closer to the journey of Ted, from How I Met Your Mother, where the Mother never appears or says a word because he hasn't met her yet. That's why characters are silent. That's what they do in gaming - Nintendo does it very explicitly. They let you put yourself into the game, and make the character's personality out into whoever you want her to be. Giving Princess Peach a personality inside the game would dispel the ten-second emotion her scenes evoke. For those ten seconds, Mario is you, and Peach is whoever you would think of first in that situation - not consciously, but emotionally.

Are these particular instances all that bad? Not really. She made a big deal of Peach being left out, so I responded that Nintendo can't bring her back because they've established her with this ability that would be overpowered. She argued that Zelda was nothing more than the "helpful princess," which is just above a damsel. But as I said, that's bull, she's the title character, the only one in the series with much of a personality at all - a personality more prominent than Link, who doesn't even speak.

To these I'll add, she mentions a great number of Nintendo games, from Mario to Zelda to StarFox, and seems to have forgotten the most relevant Nintendo character out there: Samus Aran took her helmet off at the end of Metroid, and millions of guys who thought they were playing as a male character realized they were playing as a girl. Whatever harm Nintendo's games are perceived to have caused, certainly that trumps them.

So her conclusion - stated or implied - that the "damsel-in-distress" represents some kind of widespread misogyny, even at the game company she's targeting, would seem to be unfounded.


I don't buy it. If a game with a female MC is unsuccessful, it's because the MC is female (if it is not because of that, it is irrelevant to the current discussion). Females are catty bitches who won't want to play female characters anyway? That seems a bit of an overstatement.

Did I say women are catty bitches? No. I said that for whatever reason, some women don't like other women and aren't necessarily drawn to play female characters. I don't say why, I don't care why. However, it happens, it's documented.

And I was responding to another of the video's assertions: That games don't target women, which everyone argues a lack of "female protagonists" is proof of. But it's not proof. There are many ways in which many games have appealed to women, who of course are a diverse group, and often want different - even contradictory - things from their entertainment.


Your arguments amount to an assertion than the gaming industry can't be any other way than it is, for a variety of reasons, but the assertions aren't supported by anything other than opinion (and the aforementioned fallacy).

Just out of curiosity, which statement did I make that relies on the "no true scotsman fallacy"? You use that line a lot, and I don't understand why.


Firstly, yes, internalized misogyny and girl-hate is an issue.....

I almost just skipped this paragraph, but I just want to say again that I'm not going to venture into that kind of psychology. There's plenty of male or "masculine" protagonists I can't stomach, for those same "masculine" traits, but I wouldn't call myself anti-male. I didn't mean the statement as a criticism of any kind.


I have yet to encounter "drawing women as an audience" as primary justification for making a game with a female protagonist, and that suggests to me questionable motives, so the whole basis of that argument is extremely suspect to me.

I'm having trouble parsing this statement. You're questioning my motives for saying that a female protagonist doesn't necessarily draw in a female audience because nobody has said it does?

The video - and many people - have argued that games don't target women. What I've said is that some games have and do target women, they just don't do it in the way feminists want them to. Marketing isn't about statements of people who say "Ugh, female protagonists." Marketing is about behavior, finding a message to connect needs with wants. If women don't buy the material, it doesn't matter why.

Women don't necessarily buy games and watch shows or read books about other women. A good portion of women just don't want to. Demand is lower for a female protagonist, and the markets follow suit.

I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing necessarily, but as an industry they're more or less behaving the way a knowledgeable outside observer would expect them to. It's not necessarily the rampant misogynistic bigotry it's being characterized as.


Not to mention the male audience. This might shock you, but a lot of men would and do play games with female protagonists.

Have you ever played a game like WoW and talked to some of the guys who play female characters? It's not necessarily an argument in favor of female protagonists = feminist ideals.
 
Last edited:

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
It's a major issue in this conversation, I think, to characterize everyone who disagrees with something as making dirty nasty bigoted attacks. I find that attitude reprehensible on a personal level.

So what? What does your hypersensitivity to being disagreed with have to do with the discussion?

Your arguments boil down to "I don't see it that way, so it's not true." You say it was overdone for a while, but it's not big deal because it was never omnipresent. But no one claimed it was omnipresent. It's not derogatory, because you don't see it as derogatory.

A link for you: No true Scotsman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (in case you want to know what it is, but in re-reading your post it doesn't really apply as I agree with the point made).

What I'm interested in at this point is why you seem so quick to take offense whenever the topic of women in media (fantasy literature, movies, games, or whatever) is raised. It seems to me the topic is susceptible to discussion without getting your back up every time.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
So what? What does your hypersensitivity to being disagreed with have to do with the discussion?

. . . .

What I'm interested in at this point is why you seem so quick to take offense whenever the topic of women in media (fantasy literature, movies, games, or whatever) is raised. It seems to me the topic is susceptible to discussion without getting your back up every time.

I'm just going to say that I was very clear as to the point I take offense to. We have these discussions, we make these points, and then all of a sudden you dismiss all that by saying people are just attacking her personally. No - people disagree with her. People have responded to her points. People can see the world differently. People aren't just being mean. To pretend that's what's happening just because someone disagrees with you is itself dismissive.


Your arguments boil down to "I don't see it that way, so it's not true." You say it was overdone for a while, but it's not big deal because it was never omnipresent. But no one claimed it was omnipresent. It's not derogatory, because you don't see it as derogatory.

Here's the caption that comes with the video on YouTube:

"This video explores how the Damsel in Distress became one of the most widely used gendered clichés in the history of gaming and why the trope has been core to the popularization and development of the medium itself."

I'm not going to rewatch the video to source it, but I'm pretty sure she uses the word "omnipresent."

I could characterize her statements as "I see it this way, so it is true." Or "I see it as derogatory, so it's derogatory." The question has to be asked as whether it's necessarily derogatory, and it isn't.

That some people can rationally see it as derogatory, and others just as rationally not, speaks to a common and natural diversity of world views. And there's nothing wrong with that.

The real question is under what circumstances we as a society should take actions to accomodate those who see something as derogatory. I don't have a complete answer, but I don't believe the damsel in distress qualifies in most of the situations she spends her time discussing.
 
I think the question to be asking is, "What can we ask for that can be framed in such a way that companies won't be afraid to try it?" That is to say, of the various different kinds of "strong female characters" (protagonists and otherwise) that we might want to see in video games, which are and aren't marketable at the moment? From there, we can determine

1): What particular traits determine their marketability, and

2): What might become marketable if we spin it the right way.

Edit: To give an example, there was a time and a place where Alis of Phantasy Star was a marketable protagonist. She's not especially complex, since she came from a time when most protagonists weren't complex, but she has at least the base elements of a "strong female character", and I think it's worth trying to find the reasons players were willing to buy a game with her on the cover.
 
Last edited:

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I think the question to be asking is, "What can we ask for that can be framed in such a way that companies won't be afraid to try it?"

In games I have no idea the answer to that question. The problem is that risks are hard to take in the gaming industry. Thousands of people, millions of dollars, go into one good game. Companies often stake their entire business on one single game doing well. They have core competencies that are hard to break away from. If female protagonists mean expecting even 90% of the audience, they're going to avoid it - and with so much often at stake, I have trouble saying that they're wrong to do so, at least in the aggregate.

Still, Nintendo at least tried: Metroid Other M gave Samus a voice and a story. I haven't played it, but the story got panned in reviews.

Books are different. Investments are smaller. Publishers are venture capitalists - they invest in many things hoping that the handful of successes will make it worthwhile. Publishers can take a chance on just about anything if they want to, and with self-publishers paving the way, I imagine the market will shape itself eventually. As I've said elsewhere, women in fantasy need to develop, some people need to think of new tropes and new archetypes and new paths of development, and then laud them front and center. That's not necessarily everybody's job, but eventually the better examples will get through.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top