After watching the latest episode of Tropes VS. Women (Anita Sarkeesian's soap box for all things wrong in gaming for both men and women. Oops, I'm sorry. I meant all things wrong with gaming for women, as it is just one big boy's club) I couldn't help wonder the seriousness of her message. For those that haven't seen it, the episode is essentially that the way women are depicted in games, by using stereotypical female ques in character design, is harmful as it maintains the status quo.
My main gripe with this argument is that gaming is far less a contributor to maintaining the statues quo than let's say advertising in media, or even the fashion industry. In fact, it isn't men, or just men, that encourage women to invest heavily into make-up, clothing, jewelry, and etc. It's part of a advertising machine driven by both men and women, some powerful figures in fashion. However, that's not relevant to Anita Sarkeesian, as her web show focuses on video games and the harmful effects it has on women. But, wait, if video games represent culture, and beauty and fashion is big in our culture, than it would make sense to consider why stereotypical ques are used.
Essentially, the reason why female gaming characters are designed with overtly stereotypical ques is the same why male characters are. Duke Nukem, the Doom Marine, Contra dudes, Mario, and Gears of War dudes are all designed with overtly stereotypical images that obviously do not represent the men that play the games. Lara Croft, Joanna Dark, Samus, Princess Peach, and Dead or Alive babes are all designed with overtly stereotypical images that obviously do not represent women in our everyday lives.
Anita, if you're this upset about video game depiction of women, than you'll need to battle against the notion that sex, beauty, and tough dudes and dudettes sell products faster than celibate, ugly, and weak dudes and dudettes do.
My second point is that she argues that female characters are simply a female version of a male character. I was baffled by this retort. There are three key things wrong with her statement.
First, I had to remind myself that biologically speaking men and women are counterparts of one another. Men and women look very similar but with differences in body shape, reproductive roles, and (evidenced indicates) slight differences in max strength.
Second, old-school games required a simple to decipher difference to indicate male or female characters. I'm not sure how else a developer is to indicate that a character is female or male without stereotypical ques for each. Ms. Pac-man wears a bow because it is an instant identifier, because in western culture bows are an article of clothing that women tend to wear. It isn't stating that women ought to wear bows. It is simply a quick and dirty identifier. Besides, one could flip the argument and state that male characters use stereotypical ques. Link has a flat chest. The characters in Double Dragon have muscles. Ken and Ryu have muscles on muscles, and Scorpion has a deep manly voice. These are all quick and easy stereotypical ques to describe a character.
Third, um, Ms. Pac-man had more of a personality than Pac-man, by a long shot. I don't know where Anita gets off stating that she is simply Pac-man with a bow, because she is a classy lady that can handle her own. Peach in Super Mario Bros. 2 is not simply a counter part to Mario, she is a ideal character with an advantageous jump. Samus is a male counter part to who? Mega man? No, wrong series. Zelda is a female counter part to Link? Well, I guess since they are both elven, but one tends to be a princess, while the other is some poor kid from the country.
Look, I'm not going to state that women are represent fairly in video games, but neither are men. Oh, but Jesse, men are represented like a thousand times more. True, and while that might be an indicator of implicit bias, it may also be a bias formed about the target audience. The other issue is what I consider to be a strong female character carries what Anita would classify as "male" traits. But why should traits be gender specific? I know they tend to be, but a strong female is one that can kick ass parallel to that of any man while doing dishes.
I'm obviously joking. People should learn to not take things so seriously. Video games are an immature hobby aimed at boys with very boy like tendencies (masturbating to pixels). Wanna change how females are depicted in gaming, be a trend setter, and see how well it sells. That's how. Fund game development that caters to feminist games. Is that a game? Would men be like slaves to women in those games? I might like that.
No comments:
Post a Comment