Tag: Feminism

Milady consorting with the enemy and showing a terrible fashion sense.

I'm 100% sure that if you have played WoW past level 15, when the world is finally open to you via LFG, and jerks start knocking at your door, that you have heard at some point that "elves are gay". Even the Alliance bull-shouldered Night Elves are subject to this "smear", when they seemingly fit the rigid definition of masculinity. I ought to provide such a definition, to clarify my argument. This is taken from a master's thesis in Spanish¹ and translated and summed up the best I could:

The masculine ideal follows four basic mottos:

1- He should not be effeminate.

The true man lacks any kind of femininity. It is required of him that he renounces to a part of himself, forcing him to repress his capacity to express affection and his most sensitive side. Tenderness and sensitivity are usually female-attributed virtues. Man, above all, shall show that he is neither woman nor homosexual, which would denote his lack of manhood.

2- He must be an important person, in possession of status.

Manhood is measured by reaped successes, by harvested power. Also by the admiration that causes in others. Man's goal is to achieve superiority with regard to the others, to possess a higher status than those in his environment. To be important, man needs to see his work recognized and triumph economically.

3- He ought to be strong.

Man has the obligation of being completely independent, powerful, autonomous and implacable, so as to not show any sign of weakness. Phrases such as "men don't cry" and "man up" signal the duty of a man to show resistance and endurance. Even against their own strength, men ought to keep firm.

4- He ought to exert his authority

Man is trained to be the strongest, and allowed to make use of force if necessary. Man is culturally violent in the necessity to show his fragile identity. To avoid any doubt regarding his masculinity, a man has to publicly show that he can be reckless, abuse of power, humiliate the weak and make use of his strength. This grants him authority. This man, much like Marlboro's cowboy or Stallone's Rambo, is the toughest among the tough. He seems to be better equipped to face death than marriage and childrearing. This, according to Badinter, makes him an affection-mutilate. Such mutilation has its origin in his first years of life, when he is taught to abdicate his feminine side, inherited from his mother, and submit to the hard work that is becoming a great man.

I suppose that it is important to make plain that this description accounts for the gender stereotypes of masculinity, not for the biological sex nor any particular man, not even Rambo. Masculinity and femininity, this is never stressed enough, are social labels traditionally pinned to one sex or the other, and they don't appear unadulterated but intermingled with each other. In fact, you can consult your degree of each of these labels with the BSRI test.

The point which interests me the most is the first one: "He should not be effeminate". I reflected upon what made Elves in fantastic literature effeminate, and could not find any examples of passivity, subservience, or even sensitivity. It would depend on the source you claim, but in general none of these traits are espoused by the Elvenkind. In Tolkien, for instance, we find quite the contrary: the Elves, who were there before the Men, were a quarrelsome kind who engaged in war with the Enemy and with each other, and showed indisputable bravery and endurance and all those masculine characteristics. It might have harmed their reputation Peter Jackson's portrayal of elven battle prowess, which was ridiculously over-the-top for Legolas. What is most curious is the fact that Legolas' ideal beauty and grace was not translated into the big screen. But Arwen's was.

The only remaining point that accounts for their 'gayness' is Beauty. Not mundane beauty that derives from a fine build, a display of athletic strength inherited from Greek sculpture. Intangible, aloof beauty such as Arwen and Galadriel's. 'Feminine' beauty.

It was apparently of a shape similar to that of an earthly being and was completely covered by a transparent, glassy envelope or suit, as supple as gauze. Through it a pair of enormous and brilliant eyes looked at him curiously. Its skin, where visible, was the loveliest, luminous blue that Dirk had ever seen, its features human in outline, yet strangely alien, as though the spirit behind them were of another essence and tempered in unknown fires. Although standing a foot or so taller than his own goodly height, it seemed almost to float with an effect of airy grace instantly noticeable and arresting as though it was impervious to the influences of gravity. (Vaughan 1932: 367).

This is a fragment of a science-fiction short story called "The Woman from Space". The title already gives away that the being which was initially neuter is a woman. Notice the adjectives used to describe it. They are reminiscent of the descriptive pattern of thousands of similar stories about alien women, and of earth women of an aloof and distant quality, physically and psychologically veiled. But this could very well be the description of an elf.

The undeniable beauty of the being from space seemed more natural now that he knew it to be feminine. (Vaughan 1932: 369).

Beauty, or at least this kind of distant, mystical beauty, is more natural in women. Have you noticed that none of the aforementioned points on masculinity mentioned beauty, or even physical attractiveness? It is derived from the strength factor, and not valued as a means to attain masculinity, although it is certainly esteemed in the social spheres. You can find proof of this duality in the language itself - We are taught that 'beautiful' is more appropriate for women than for men; 'pretty' is reserved for women; and 'handsome' is exclusive for men. Notice the etymology of the word? It is related to physical aptitude, not to attractiveness.

Thus, beauty is a trait which is conventionally attributed to the female, due to a multiplicity of factors. One of them is the hegemony of the masculine point of view in literature. Men, who held the pen exclusively for centuries, fixed their view in the other sex, and depicted it as an unreachable mystical figure, a natural phenomenon to dissect, the object scrutinized. What happens when this exclusive beauty is appropriated by men (or elves)? They become partly feminine and, as we have seen, to be rejected by the masculine, which ought to be clean from such influences. People who identify wholly (perhaps subconsciously) with the masculine ideal, and which believe in biological sex to be equated to gender, are those who subscribe this view.

Male Blood Elves, even though they conform to most aspects of masculinity, are deemed 'gay' because of the alien beauty of the feminine, often paired with a certain haughtiness which may render them insufferable. But I like them, nonetheless. They make fine bastards in roleplay.

And they needn't be sexualized to be appealing.

¹ Rodrígues González, Clarissa. La recreación del andrógino y sus representaciones en el arte y los mass media: un estudio etnográfico sobre roles de género. MA Thesis. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Madrid, 2010.

I would like to try this game. I'm willing to pay for the pre-purchase, even though I know it's a pernicious business move for the consumers, because I'm curious about testing it myself in the beta. What I am not sure about is whether I should. My concern is not about the legitimacy of the business practice, but with some of the game decisions that perpetuate a kind of gaming community which I feel uncomfortable with. It is a question of integrity.

My qualms are about female representation in video games. Guild Wars 2 does nothing to alleviate the problem, it even fosters it. Its female characters are tall, extremely thin and scantily clad, wearing high heels and revealing armour to the battle. Their faces could have been modelled after any doll of our childhood: lifeless, perennially smiling, childish or aloof and seductive. Perhaps there will be alternatives at character creation, but so far I have only seen these impossible figures that appear in every commercial, and in so many games, where we get to embody them and be flawless too.

I have also felt disappointed at Blizzard for their female characters in Diablo III. I was fine about the Wizard, to some extent, because I had grown with the Diablo II Sorceress, and was accustomed to her looks. I didn't perceive her as sexualized or seductive, or ridiculously clothed for the job. The Demon Hunter, however, perpetuates the notion that women would keep wearing high heels and revealing neckline (not in the trailer, but in the art works and early armour of the game) as if it were natural, instead of the handicap it actually is; not to mention in life-or-death situations such as fighting demons. Any real woman would wear what is most comfortable, that is a truism. But why don't developers ever acknowledge the artificiality of high heels, and subsequently of their female constructions?

In Diablo III I solved my qualms by playing a male Demon Hunter. It is not the first time I do so. I was not comfortable with the female Blood Elves in WoW, and thus picked the opposite gender. Besides, the (male) Blood Elves were the first WoW race that were aesthetically pleasing to women. The other male characters are built to accommodate to the idea of heroism and physical prowess, even the traditionally slender and graceful (Night) Elves. It is a fantasy designed for men, and not necessarily related to what women find attractive in men. That is why most of the conversations about superheroes with enormous muscles as sexualized for women are wrong, because their characterization is based on a male aspiration. Needless to say, this aspiration is as artificial as the hypersexualization of women.

I left Age of Conan earlier than most people, and probably because of different reasons. I was not comfortable with my characters. Any female I would create had the biggest bosom I had ever seen, in such slim bodies. That constitution is either very rare or artificial. Then I decided I would have a male healer, as slender and unimpressive as possible, as you would expect a caster to be. No chance. He looked horrendous, and still much bigger than any men I had seen which was not coming out of a gym. Both the female and the male characters were designed for men who ascribed to the superhero/Conan fantasy, in which women are sexualized and men are depicted as powerful beasts. And, despite being half-naked in their barbarian attire, the intent is not for them to appeal to women, but to be a vessel of masculine power. The patriarchy system works in both directions, it supplies unattainable ideals for the men too.

What will I do in Guild Wars 2 to tackle the issue? I might yet again create a male character. I could discard the game completely, but I don't want to deprive myself of an enjoyable experience. I had been playing video games which are disrespectful towards minorities since the dawn of time, and it doesn't look like it's going away. I shall be content with drawing attention to the problem, so that more people will perhaps reclaim an accurate representation of 50% of the population. Speaking of which, Borderlands 2 will again feature three male protagonists and one female. Such an old issue. There is one little test I sometimes put to practice when watching a movie, called The Bechdel Test, which accounts for the number of females that actively participate in a movie, without being related to the male leads. It's surprising, and disheartening, to learn how many movies fail this test, reinforcing the notion that male is the default, and female the Other. I wonder if we could adapt this test somehow to the gaming genre. I know of at least one rule that I would propose: "Do the female characters wear comfortable clothes when required?" Can you think of other rules?

If I had to divorce myself from every cultural activity that conscious or unconsciously misrepresents minorities (although women are not a minority at all, they might still be so in the gaming sphere), I would not participate in any mainstream entertainment. I do not watch TV anymore, do not go to the cinema, do not read best-selling books. I read the canon, and sci-fi with a clear notion that it is also full of ideologies. I am on guard most of the time. I would have my games not misrepresent me, but if I had to adhere to that creed I would not play almost any games. What is one to do?

Edit: I received some info through the comments about the gender structures in the game and I feel that, even though the physical representation of women is way off, I couldn't discard the game completely because of its treatment of gender: 3 out of 5 faction leaders are women, and women are constantly featured in the game as prominent figures in power. That is indeed a step forward. Still, a battle has to be fought regarding the sexualization of our characters. Here's a post by Kadomi which adds more to the issue than I had.

I guess that, by now, everybody has heard about the claims of Effraeti about not being a feminist, the response at spinks' blog, and whole range of reactions in comments and other blogs (especially insightful is Apple Cider's, as always). I hesitated whether to make a post out of it or not bother. It is particularly difficult to write when you are angry and perplexed, as many of us were at the time. I shall follow the example of Apple Cider and voice my opinion in a calm and constructive way, because the topic deserves it.

I shall start with an anecdote which might appear to be off-topic. Bear with me.

A friend of mine sent me the trailer of the newest movie by Tim Burton, called Dark Shadows. I watched it, and when prompted to answer if I would like to see it, I said: "This movie offends me." My friend didn't see what was offensive about it, so I explained to him that I was fed up with the stereotype of seductive+evil women who use sex to entice men, and of men who are rendered helpless by this so-called feminine power. Of course, we would be expected to identify with endearing Johnny Depp and despise the evilly sexual woman. Tropes are used everywhere, for every topic: gender, race, sexual orientation... But some of them are more harmful than others, and when your depictions of women are either evil seductresses or innocent girls, there is not much with which real women can identify, and we risk teaching the kids values about feminism that are wrong. For more tropes and a very clear-sighted argument and entertaining videos, check Feminist Frequency.

I was talking with somebody only marginally conscious about his privilege, but willing to learn. We engaged in an exposition of feminist issues, and he understood why I saw things from other, more self-conscious, lenses.

The problem with privilege doesn't stop at economic factors, with women having less opportunities than men. It is also apparent in all cultural manifestations, especially in mass-entertainment. Films being customarily targeted at men, but still viewed by women, create a clima of masculine interpretation of society, both by men and women. Thus, masculine qualities are prized above the feminine, and a masculine understanding of universal concepts such as "strength" is proposed (see Spinks', the comment by Gevlon). This is why "strong" women are typically depicted in the media as sexualized badasses (Sucker Punch at Feminist Frequency). We need to broaden our scope, to be able to conceive our world from the Outsider's perspective. As Simone de Beauvoir expressed in The Second Sex: "She is defined and differentiated with reference to man and not he with reference to her; she is the incidental, the inessential as opposed to the essential. He is the Subject, he is the Absolute— she is the Other" (xxii).

Inequality goes beyond economics. It is a conception of the world. It dictates what femininity ought to be: seductive and evil, or innocent and unthreatening. The Angel of the House of the nineteenth century is now the Manic Pixie Dream Girl, the perpetually kidnapped princess, the heroine whose only achievement is waking the male hero to a new world of love and feminine comprehension. Women should not be defined by their relation to the men of the stories, but it is sadly all-too-common. Even in the great Planescape: Torment, Deionarra and Annah, and to some extent Fall-from-Grace, are defined by their romantic ties to The Nameless One. It is a pervasive and unnoticed trend which our subconscious grasps better than us.

From a very early age we are bombarded with these concepts of womanhood, taught to be Snow White the passive, and despise the active Stepmother; taught that we are all princesses who deserve a sexy, understanding yet virile, strong yet sensitive prince. We are not taught that happiness lies in ourselves. We are especially forbid to think about other women as allies -princes are after all in short supply.

Men are also taught their own lessons. Some of them as horrific as the women's. That they should succeed no matter what, completely on their own, or they will be a failure, completely emasculated. That the path to success is through stark, aggressive competition. That their value is measured in what they own.

Then some women react in a predictable manner. I was one of those women. They shake off all these teachings and, also predictable, do a radical about-turn to the equally artificial world of masculinity, and assume that the doctrines imparted to men are the Evangelical Truth and femininity is apocryphal. But values such as "strength" are connotatively marked too, as I have argued before. These "New Women" reject one lie to fall prey to another one. And, in the process, they rebuke all women that they categorise as "feminine", and judge their attitude "weak", endorsing the position of the men who also believe such lie.

But the femininity they so proudly repudiate is in fact as fake as their new-found masculinity. It is a societal construct. An insidious societal construct, nevertheless, which women are expected to imitate, and sometimes do. This is why we work with prejudices when we encounter a stranger, because these prejudices sadly apply in many cases, especially when the other person belongs to that collective which hasn't challenged the mass-media indoctrination. But those are prejudices nonetheless, and they are offensive. To expect women to be over-emotive, even hysterical, is allowing yourself to be fooled by a reductionism. People don't work that way. We are complex, multi-faceted beings which receive influences from everything around us, and from our own reaction to said influences. Thus, although what is traditionally considered as feminine is very compelling, its contrary ("the tomboy") also is, and to extricate what we have been told to assume is really hard, because every day we learn new forms in which we had been "educated". We have learned, mostly on a subconscious level, that strength equals individuality, and that men are strong. We want to be like them, we want to be strong in the sense that society posits. We reject the weak, the feminine. We do not learn that femininity is also about communication, community, strength in the collective. About sensitivity, empathy, cooperation.

Human beings are psychologically constructed not in binary oppositions, as we are led to believe, but in gradations. Sex is not the same as gender, and sexual orientation is much more intricate than the three milestones that we have conventionally set. By this I mean that femininity and masculinity are not exclusive to women and men respectively, and that we should conceive them as sets of values traditionally subscribed to women and men. Both sexes are allowed to be rational and sensitive, competitive and cooperating, strong in their own individual manner.

Finally, these women who had allied themselves with the males to the detriment of their own identity, when confronted with the truth, let go their self-hatred, and accept that we are all in this boat together. That we all have been equally indoctrinated, and that there is a necessity to look beyond gender barriers.

This state of comprehension is not nirvana, but it is not the commonality either. The process that has been completed for some is still on-going for many, and their numbers seem unsurmountable (as sometimes is their willing ignorance). Some of those who have come out of the cavern, when they return to share their findings, they encounter skepticism, uncooperativeness, hatred. They respond with calmness, patience, compassion. But only after an internal process of purgation, after the anger stops its seething. Every time.

Their interlocutors argue that things are the way they are for one or another sad reason. Terrible, they acknowledge, but that is how the world works. The reason is rational and justified. We don't make games that cater to women because there is no market, and money drives everything. Women are poorer because they have kids. That is rational and justified, they argue. It is as if some people want the world to remain as ruthless as it is.

Episode 19 of Season 5 of The Big Bang Theory was for me the straw that broke the camel's back. In case you haven't seen any episode, the series is about a group of scientists who are also nerds, and who hold difficult relationships with various female characters, the main one being a more down-to-earth cheerleader-type woman, Penny, with whom the protagonist, Leonard, falls in love. If that could be considered love, but all right. The only thing you need to know is that this series is profoundly gendered, depicting the prestigious but socially-awkward scientists/nerds in contrast with the unsuccessful-in-her-career but savant-in-the-ways-of-life woman (later on two female characters are added to the mix: Amy, the unfeminine biologist who is as ignorant in life as she is brilliant in the lab; and Bernadette, the silly, twee, caring girlfriend, who is also employed in a lab).

In this episode, the guys are planning a marathon of 48 hours of SWTOR (the game's name is not mentioned, but we are shown a good amount of game clips and screenshots from the shoulders of the characters). I'll come back to the game later. The plot of this episode has something to do with concessions, and how different relationships handle the fine art of yielding and giving permission, being the activity under the girlfriend's scrutiny the only-guys sleepover to play videogames.

I'll be focusing on the gaming part and how it concerns women, not the dynamics of each relationship and the problems they are facing. Likewise, I won't delve into the disappointing advice that Penny gives Amy regarding feminine tools to force their way in a dispute (sex, silence or making a scene - what happened with 'communication'?). My point has to do with Bernadette and how she is portrayed when engaging in the male activity of gaming.

Bernadette had forced Howard to invite her to the boys' party by the terrifying act of suggesting an argument: "What? You don't want me to come?" Then, a succession of facepalming scenes ensue: Bernadette being loud and silly (screaming "Pew Pew Pew") about her DPSing while the guys handle the job silent and professionally; she suggesting that her boyfriend should wear a matching robe so that people in-game knew that they were a couple; and one of the most enraging ones: she being disapproved because of her healing only her boyfriend. She had been automatically placed into a support role by her friends (because, she being a newbie, her decision ought to have been influenced by her peers). In any event, her playing is constantly diminished and mocked by the others, her presence only tolerated because of her boyfriend. By the end of the episode, the girls are convinced into leaving and withdrawing their complaints. And then Raj says "that's the way it is supposed to be: men together, fighting the forces of evil." Alright, I get it, it's a men's club. Women are a hindrance, either harming their game enjoyment with silliness and lack of professionalism, or by asking them to commit to non-enjoyable activities such as visiting their grandmother.

On SWTOR, I found it particularly hilarious that the playing session which the boys are having emphasizes the combat and grouping parts of the game, and makes no comment on the much-praised 'fourth pillar' of storytelling. There's no mention of the story, just hype and excitement about combat and loot: Raj: "When Gandhi advocated his philosophy of non-violence, I bet he didn't know how much fun it was killing stuff", Leonard: "Ok, let's divide up the loot" (wasn't loot auto-assigned, anyways?). A few views on the player's laptops show lightsabers and a female avatar doing some emote. If the gender assumptions weren't reason enough, this tasteless promotion based on precisely the weakest points of a game reassured me I had been watching The Big Bang Theory for too long now.

I'll be absent for a week, and won't be able to check the site during my trip. See you guys and girls soon.