I Want to Murder Some Nazis and Save a Damsel in DDistress
I stumbled across this interesting post entitled “What Women Want …in Women Characters”. The subtitle explains the idea: “What Women Want in Women Characters, or Women Characters Redesigned by Women SFF Artists”.
On the surface level, this is not a particularly good post. It does use the word mansplaining without a shadow of irony, for one. It also lacks coherence and consistency. Look at the title again. “What Women Want”. And then read this:
I am a woman, and I do not speak for all women.
But okay, let’s say it’s just the question of using a mental shortcut in the title. Sadly, this kind of doublethink is present in other places too. Compare:
The message is this: “We’re fighting so hard for inclusion, and then even in seeming victory, we are not being consulted, and our point of view is not being taken into account.” THAT’S why we’re so upset.
…to:
This is the most important take-away: Including a woman’s point of view does not replace or invalidate the male point of view.
It’s basically “You don’t have to do this, we respect the freedom of your artistic expression, of course. It’s just that you suck if you don’t do this.” It’s similar to Feminist Frequency’s message that “It’s okay to like these things, as long as you know that you’re an evil violent misogynist.”
There are other problems, too. Someone in the comments mentioned that the redesign of Samus…
…makes no sense because Zero suit goes under the battle armor. To which we get this condescending reply:
Yes, we KNOW the Zero suit is supposed to go under her battle armor, we’re professionals. We’re talking about the high-heeled version in Super Smash Bros, which was clearly marketed just to make Samus more sexy. Which was unfortunate because she was such an amazing character without needing to be sexified. (Yes, I’m old enough to remember when it was actually a shock that she was a girl at the end of the original Metroid.) So enough with the mansplaining, please.
…which is a textbook strawman, it has absolutely nothing to do with the criticized redesign itself. (A redesign — if separated from the source and thus simply becoming “design” — I personally like very much, it gives me a classic Euro comic vibe.)
Or take this, for example:
Make sure you understand the definition of feminism before you start debating it. Feminists want Gender Equality. That’s it. That’s what it means.
No, no it does not. It means that in certain forms of feminism. But not in all of them. You also have feminists that believe in female supremacy and matriarchy, for example. And even those feminists who simply want equality can understand it in a different way: from literal equality to personal independence that celebrates the differences between men and women. So yeah, things are not that simple when even “gender equality” is something various people define differently. And do you really think that while vast majority of people are for equality, they refuse to be called feminists just because they are uninformed?
Anyway, despite all of its issues, I still kind of like this post. Subversion can be inspiring. One of the mental exercises a designer can do is to subvert. This is how the sniper rifle in Bulletstorm was designed. We listed all the things that are expected in a sniper rifle:
- Insta-hit
- Long reload time
- (etc.)
…and we listed the opposites:
- Bullet is a slow projectile
- Insta-reload
- (etc.)
We found the “slow projectile” subversion interesting. And boom, a brainstorm session later the guided bullet was born in our game (even though we have not invented the guided missiles as such, of course, plus some other games did that feature while we were still in the development).
So even though a lot of the re-designs in the post could be described as “cover the belly button” (some of which are just misguided, like Red Sonja, while others, like Nariko, make total sense), one can find a lot of great and inspiring stuff there. And not just the subversions, of course. I am not exactly sure why The Great Fairy is so tragically sad, but I cannot take my eyes off her either.
There’s also some interesting discussion happening in the comments, so this is yet another example that “don’t read the comments” lost its relevance lately.
But the most important part of the post, the part I really like, is this:
[…] there are ways to please both genders in every depiction of a woman. A woman can be sexy, without being sexualized. A woman can be in an extremely sexy pose, but still have agency. A woman can embrace a diversity of body types. You’ll even find thinking of a sexy woman as a subject instead of an object will make your art better. It will give narrative to the piece. (Forget about gender differences, you should be making sure all your characters have agency and are acting as fleshed-out, emotional subjects.)
Considering all the latest events, especially in the gaming industry, and the onslaught of radical feminist censors and neo-puritan white knights, this paragraph tastes like ambrosia. If this is what this particular branch of feminism looks like, show me where I can sign up. It’s not a step in the right direction, it’s a world-record jump.
But look, there’s just one thing left. Accept this and I never need to speak on the subject again.
Creators don’t have to give a damn what part of the potential audience think and they should not be punished for that.
Let me explain. What I find sexy is what the author of the post I am discussing here would probably find sexy too. 90 seconds of Lauren Bacall is sexier to me that the entire run of Playboy. Watch Humphrey Bogart agree:
Having said that, I was sixteen once. At that age, my hormones had different priorities. But even for grown up men not everything has to be deep and smart. Superficial and tasteless have their place in this world too, and you know that very well if you ever lost yourself in a dance to any of the forgettable club hits of the summer.
Not every man’s fantasy has to be about a smart woman that is sexy in a deep, sophisticated way. Sometimes, it’s about a smart woman who is sexy in a superficial, shallow way. Sometimes, it’s a fantasy about a half-naked barbarian queen or a dumb bimbo. The key word here is “fantasy”.
Lately, we — men — have become cowards and hypocrites. We play Bayonetta and defend her looks as “empowering to some women” because “a woman designed her”. It’s all true, sexy heroines are indeed the power fantasy of some women, and rightly so, and yes, Bayonetta was designed by a woman. But no, that’s not the main reason why most of us like Bayonetta, and no, it’s also not because we stand united with sex-positive feminists (even if we do). We like to look at Bayonetta — at least that is how she catches our attention — because we like to look at female bodies, plain and simple.
Jesus Christ, just admit it. There is nothing wrong with that. The world did not end when men were objectified into cheese graters on the covers of romance novels…
…and will not end if some video games have high-heeled dominatrices or female warriors with an eye patch for armor.
On the contrary, just like plebeian pizza or burgers have their place in the world of truffles and saffron, fantasies have their important role too even if they are as simple and shallow as becoming a rock star or sleeping with everyone in The Witcher. Millennia ago, all we had was our imagination and dreams. Books, then movies, and now video games have become tools through which we can experience these fantasies without affecting anyone in the real world.
No, wait, there are some effects. Did you know that sexual objectification and focus on a body do not lead to dehumanization but to increased emotion and empathy? Did you know that behaving badly in a video game increases moral sensitivity in real life?
So sure, I am all for better game writing. That means characters with agency, fleshed out, three-dimensional. But sometimes, I just want to murder some Nazis with a rocket launcher and save a damsel in DDistress — and that does not make me a monster.
Can I have that? Can we agree that people have the right to fantasize, even if you personally find that fantasy tasteless or shallow?
If we can, then I think it’s a much better use of everybody’s time to promote the things you like instead of hating on the things you don’t like. It’s not easy, and I know that because I am often breaking that rule myself. But I think that even if ultimately unattainable, it’s a decent goal nonetheless.
Lately, I see that a lot of people want three-dimensional characters because in their heads two dimensions equal sexism and misogyny and other -isms and -phobias. I want three-dimensional characters because that equals better, more engaging, deeper stories that reveal some actual truths about the human condition. We have the same goal, but for different reasons. I can live with that.
What I have a harder time to live with is the contempt and the outrage for anything that’s not “right”. Suffocating the artists through the social pressure. Making claims about how the world is or works without any proof. Limiting the choice in the name of …diversity.
How about we go back to the good old school tolerance? Tolerance is good, right? But do you remember that it is “the ability or willingness to tolerate something, in particular the existence of opinions or behavior that one does not necessarily agree with”? That it is “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own”?
And what do you think is more effective: “if you like this you are a bad person” or “here’s something different, I loved it, I hope you will find this interesting”?
This post is not a call to kill any critique. Critique is fine. It becomes a problem only when the critics draw conclusions based on false assumptions or when they want to impose their values on the rest of the world and sell them as absolute truths. It’s puzzling that the same people who fight for virtual characters’ agency often refuse that agency to the real human beings. Remember the time when being a critic meant helping others make a choice, not trying to make the choice for them?
This post is also not a call to ignore the audience. As a creator, of course I should consider what my audience will think of my work. Heck, even if I created for male audience only, there would be nothing wrong with consulting a woman if I got a woman character right. These are all obvious things.
But I do refuse to accept that just because someone doesn’t like something, the rest of the world has to dislike it too. I refuse to accept that creators have to cripple their vision and pander to certain groups in order to avoid public shaming and boycotts. I refuse to accept that human fantasies role-played in virtual worlds need to be rationed and moderated.
It’s hard to stay silent when you dislike something. As I said it earlier, I know that all too well, I have been very vocal about my hatred for a certain game. But not even for a second I refused its right to exist and I am glad they got on Steam so everybody can decide if this is the fantasy they want to pursue.
Prove to me that fantasizing about shallow one-dimensional objectified characters has a negative impact on the world. After you do that, prove to me that the negatives outweigh the positives (like the intrinsic human need to fantasize). Don’t give me your feels, you outrage and your cultural studies. Give me a real proof for the first thing, and a real proof for the second thing. Then, and only then I will change my mind on the existence of such characters. But until then, how about not limiting the options available to us, and focusing on broadening the palette instead? Is “live and and let live” really that hard?
