Month: August 2006

Feminist Video Games?

jfpbookworm

This is disappointing.

I’ve seen Beyond Good & Evil and The Longest Journey cited as exemplars of “feminist video games”, but not much beyond that.

Of course, there’s the larger question of what would make a game good from a feminist perspective. In addition to being good from a gameplay perspective, I’d say such a game would include female characters who are full agents in the game world, and who are treated as subjects rather than objects. I think a variation of the Mo Movie Measure applies as well, in that female characters should interact with other female characters in ways that aren’t centered around men.

So do other games fit the bill? I think a lot of them do to an extent, but have aspects that undo their positive messages. Final Fantasy X, for example, has several active female characters, but their stories each have problems. Lulu isn’t given nearly as much character development as the other characters, and the main element to her backstory is a romantic relationship. Yuna’s got a great story, but it cedes precedence to Tidus’ perception of Yuna. (Incidentally, how much cooler would FFX have been if Yuna rather than Tidus were the primary character we followed?) Rikku doesn’t get the pairing-off treatment, but does get the “fanservice” treatment, most notably during her reintroduction when the camera pans along her body.

It’s been a while since I played Suikoden III, but I remember Chris Lightfellow being a fairly complex and foreground character; the only drawback there was that she was the only female in an otherwise all-male group of knights (albeit the leader of the group). Xenosaga I contains the characters of Shion, a female scientist, and KOS-MOS, a feminine android, which both appeared promising, though I never progressed far enough in the game to find out how the characters were handled.

In other genres, the Metroid series gets cited as a feminist game, since Samus Aran is a hyper-capable woman who avoids (mostly) being objectified. While Metroid doesn’t quite fit the standards I put forth above, I think that speaks to my own bias toward adventure games and RPGs, which may be unfair.

What games do you all think meet the standard for good video games from a feminist perspective?

Fighting Words

Sigel Phoenix
[Hey everyone! My name is Dora/Sigel Phoenix and Tekanji recently invited me over here to guest blog. I have a personal/political blog on LiveJournal. I’m a college student majoring in English and Women Studies, and my interests include gender, race, and all things geeky. Nice to meet you all!]

I’m lucky in the people I geek out with, because it’s a mixed-gender group, mostly socially aware, and made up of generally good people. I don’t have to worry about guys telling me I can’t play something because I’m female, or looking down on what I’m interested in.

But I never hear the word “bitch” so often as in the middle of a tense battle in a game.

I hardly have the worst gaming experience, I know. Even the language I hear isn’t the worst – it’s nothing like the “cocksucking whores” or “stupid cunts” I’ve heard, and heard about, in the more anonymous forum of online gaming (yes, Counter-Strike, I’m looking at you). And most of the people I encounter while gaming actually try to not be sexist.

But there’s something about gaming that inspires honesty. I’d guess it has something to do with adrenaline, stress, and excitement – triggered by things like a major boss fight when you forgot to save, or that moment when you really really need to roll a 20. In any case, gaming tends to make us drop our pretenses – to help us shed our social niceties and polite talk. I don’t know anyone who hasn’t engaged in some violent smack talk during particularly exciting battles, never mind how you normally speak. I hear it in groups of any size, whether the medium is tabletop or electronic, an FPS or an RPG. And in such a fast-paced and high-stress environment, people often resort to the lowest common denominator in language, words that are fast and simple in getting your meaning across.

So when I hear people use “female” insults like this – words that refer specifically to women or characteristics of women – I can’t believe that they’re “just” words. Saying a word means that you believe something about it – something about what it means, and what a listener will understand through its usage. That’s why we usually don’t swear in the workplace, or reference inside jokes with people we don’t know; why we make our vocabulary more or less complex depending on what we’re trying to do (make an argument versus giving directions, etc.). I wouldn’t use “geek” with mundanes – at least, not in the same sense as I do with my friends – because it means different things to different groups of people.

So when we use words like “pussy” or “cocksucker” to describe the on-screen boss or our opponent in a fighting game, what do we mean? What do we believe the words mean? What kind of impression are we trying to give a listener?

I can tell you one thing: we mean something different than when we use non-gendered or even “male” insults. Sure, “asshole” and “dick” are often insults. But I often hear these words used in a light-hearted manner to describe people of any gender. That’s because the connotations of these words are somewhat positive – being a dick means that you’re rude and inconsiderate, but that’s because you’re assertive, you take no shit, you’re “ballsy.” And those characteristics are good. People will call themselves these terms – shrugging, maybe sheepish but usually laughing, admitting their own insolence and boorishness with little remorse.

In contrast, take a look at the tone of “female” insults. What makes someone a “pussy” or a “bitch,” or any other similar terms? Acting scared, or maybe being sneaky and cheating. Being underhanded instead of confronting something face-to-face “like a man.” In another sense of “bitch,” it’s being “hysterical” (which is another gendered insult, though less easy to recognize) and “overreacting,” usually because of “hormones.” Or it could mean that you were made into someone’s “bitch” because you got beaten in the game. In all senses: it’s about being weak.

How many people do you know who let others call them these words? Who consider these a source of pride? (The reclamatory usage of “bitch” is something different, and doesn’t count here.) I certainly don’t know any. I especially don’t know any men who would accept them. That’s because these identities lack the desirable characteristics of, say, an asshole. “Asshole” is almost a title, because of the way we revere aggressive (read: manly) behavior. It can indicate respect, or inclusion when it’s used among a group of peers. But “pussy”? That’s not a title; it’s a label. It’s a way of subordinating someone and showing your disdain.

Yes, this is misogynist. Even though these terms are used on people of any gender – often by people of any gender – there is a real, sexist power dynamic at work. Regardless of who says the words, the message that everyone gets is that it’s bad to be called them – and because these words are associated with female characteristics, it’s bad to be like a woman. These insults are simply shorthand versions of the common admonishments, “Don’t be such a girl” or, “Take it like a man.” Both versions maintain the old hierarchy of manly = good, girly = bad, which go beyond the game or whatever social situation in which they’re used.

The damage isn’t equal between men and women. Certainly these insults can hurt men, especially when they’re used as a method of social ostracization – something which geeks are all too familiar with. The message to men is: You’re acting like a woman, and that makes you bad. To women, however, the message is: It doesn’t matter how you act, what you are is bad. For women, these words tap into deeper and longer-standing rejection, degradation, and humiliation – into a sexism that spans social status, that spans history.

It doesn’t matter how many men are also insulted in this way. Under the current system, in which men and masculinity are valued more than women and femininity, “equal” treatment in this arena hits women harder. Would you bet the other two Little Pigs went to Mr. Brick House and said, “Oh, it’s okay, the Big Bad Wolf is blowing just as hard on your house as on ours”? Nah, it was more like, “I’m tired of vulnerability, and I want in on that protection!”

Maybe people who use these words don’t think about all of this. Certainly they don’t go through a detailed analysis like this one, every time they throw out a word. To bring it back to gaming, I know that people focusing on a video game aren’t taking the time to dissect the meaning of their language. However, like I said, people in these situations are looking for fast and simple – what will express their thoughts quickly and easily to whoever’s listening. So when we use these words, we know full well what they mean, and how other people will hear them. We’re searching for an insult, and we know exactly where to look. We can’t pretend ignorance. We can only profess conformity to the status quo, and what it says about gender and power.

So what’s left for us to use? What do we say when we’re gaming and we want to express frustration or anger?

Well, we have to say what we mean. We can’t resort to the easy shorthand when it’s destructive like this. Yeah, it’s hard; we might have to pause and think, or even (gasp!) use more words. But there’s no point in whining how difficult political correctness makes life. It’s always harder to think and break out of society’s ingrained biases. In this case, all we have to do is drop a few terms from our vocabulary. In doing so, we might start to make the point to those around us that we don’t care for the sexist value judgments that try to insinuate themselves into everything we do.

Feminist SF Carnival: Call for Subs

tekanji

The 3rd edition of the Carnival of Feminist Science Fiction and Fantasy Fans is up at New Game Plus. There’s a broad scope of issues from television to video games, and I would highly recommend checking it out.

On that subject, I’ve been suckered into volunteered to be the host for the fourth edition, to be put up on August 25. That means that it’ll be available both on OS.CB and Alas. The suggested writing theme is feminist utopias and dystopias, but (as always) you’re free to write on anything that fits into the official guidelines:

  • All Weblog Postings on Science Fiction and Fantasy works in all media (books, comic books, television, film, roleplaying tabletop games and video games) written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
  • Fan fiction written from a Feminist Perspective is eligible.
  • Posts about fan fiction written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
  • Posts about conventions and fan gatherings of a Feminist nature are eligible.
  • Posts about conventions and fan gatherings written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
  • Posts about any science fiction or fantasy fandom written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
  • Posts linking to newsand announcements are eligible, so long as they pertain specifically to the Feminist Sci-Fi Fantasy community.
  • Considerations about science fiction/fantasy news from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
  • Analysis of non-Feminist works from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
  • Rants about any of the above written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
  • Posts which spell “Space” using 3 A’s and two exclamation points and are written from a Feminist Perspective are eligible.
  • Posts about Green-Skinned Amazons (from Outer Spaaace!) with more than two breasts that are not written from a Feminist Perspective will not be eligible (and if they aren’t damned funny,* will be reproduced for mockery).
  • Posts about Getting Your Girlfriend into [specific type of fandom] had also better be damned funny. If written from a Feminist Perspective (even tongue-in-cheek), they will be eligible.

Submissions are due by Wednesday, August 23, and can be mailed to me here (please use the subject heading Feminist SF Carnival) or submitted it via the Blog Carnival form.

Alpha Males, Calling Out, and Frown Power

jfpbookworm

In the comments of my earlier post on the idea of alpha males jeffliveshere asks:

What would be an example of a man calling another man on sexism that doesn’t also fall into the problem of domination hierarchies–if, indeed, we (men, women and those of other genders) find ourselves steeped in them like fish swim in water?

The Problem of Domination Hierarchies

Feminist men calling other men out on sexism are invariably going to be employing forms of privilege. Simply by virtue of being male, they are going to provoke a different reaction than women would – often this is going to mean that they are paid more attention to, either because their audience is prone to dismissing women or because it’s not seen to be in a man’s self-interest to call out sexism. This privilege is, in fact, one of the main reasons why it’s so important that men as well as women call out sexism.

When fighting sexism, is there a difference between using one’s status as a man to be listened to and using one’s status in a dominance hierarchy? Should we consider it acceptable to use forms of persuasion that we would otherwise consider abusive, because they’re being used for subversive ends? I’m not sure on this one – I can’t decide whether some uses of patriarchal institutions to fight sexism do more good than harm.

Confrontation and Personality

Hugo Schwyzer weighs in on the alpha males confronting sexism issue as well, saying (among other things), that our personality influences our feminism:

And then there’s the other obvious issue, one which Jeff and others have addressed, of personality differences. Not all feminist men are the same! To use Myers-Briggs language, those of us who are Es (extroverts, I’m ENFP) are going to meet challenges differently than I’s (introverts). I doubt anyone has done a typology of feminist men to discover if those of us active in the movement have personality characteristics different from the population at large! I’m certain, and indeed, I know from experience that feminist men have widely varying degrees of comfort with issues like public speaking, leadership, and confrontation.

Somehow, feminist men have to be committed to putting that belief into action. But the actions we take, particularly in our relationships with others, are going to be largely congruent not only with our politics but with our personalities.

I’m pleased to hear this coming from Hugo, who in the past has failed to acknowledge that we’re not all as gregarious as he. And I concur completely, and disagree with the argument that “beta males” can’t be feminist because their personalities and their politics would conflict. I think there are plenty ways to tailor one’s fighting of patriarchy to one’s personality without compromising effectiveness.

So, getting back to jeffliveshere’s question: what are ways that feminist men can confront sexism that (a) don’t reinforce a domination hierarchy; and (b) don’t rely on a feminist man being strongly extroverted and confrontational?

Frown Power

One way to fight sexism (and racism, classism, or any abuse of privilege) without resorting to is through the use of “frown power.” The idea is credited to Stetson Kennedy, and it’s a simple one – pointedly frown at people who are being sexist. I usually say something as well along the lines of “dude, not cool” (in my best Jorge Garcia impression). The idea is to express social disapproval of the act (not the person, which is another reason to add the vocal component). This doesn’t reinforce a dominance hierarchy because the message is one of peer disapproval rather than of asserting dominance, and it’s a lot less taxing on the introvert than a long tirade.

Not relying on a hierarchy of dominance also means that I can call out sexism in situations that would otherwise raise some troubling intersection problems. One of the places I encounter overt sexism most often (or am at least most aware of it) is when I’m riding on the bus. Most of the time it’s coming from either kids on their way to the mall, or factory workers returning from a shift. Neither group is going to listen to a lecture from the white guy in dress shirt and slacks, but if I react as their peer, the message might not be so easily dismissed.

The other advantage of “frown power” is that there’s really no way to fight it without looking like a fool. If I’ve expressed myself with merely a frown and and a “not cool” in psst-your-fly-is-open tones, what response is there? Arguments, threats, etc. make them the one who’s overreacting. If they argue that their sexism “is too cool,” they look dumb – as we all know, coolness is like humor in that if you have to explain it, it’s not there.

The Temptation of Passivity

Returning to Hugo’s post:

Feminist men must avoid several temptations: the temptation to passivity as well as the temptation to play the role of the “white knight” chief among them! Based on personality traits, some men will find it difficult to summon the courage to speak out; others will find it difficult not to fall into traditional masculine roles like that of the Hero or the Rescuer. Most of us will make mistakes along the way, but learning to be as gentle and harmless as doves — while retaining “serpent wisdom” — is a good place to start.

There is certainly a potential criticism in “frown power” that it creates the “temptation of passivity” – that because it’s easier for some of us to simply frown at people, we’ll forgo more direct confrontation even when it’s called for. I don’t believe this is a big problem – I think it’ll encourage more people to act for equality, and that in turn will encourage the people to more directly confront these issues, knowing that society’s got their back.

More Ideas?

What ways do you all call out sexism in your life? What have you found works (for whatever definition of “works” you care to use), and what doesn’t?

"Alpha" and "Beta" Males

jfpbookworm

Jeff over at Feminist Allies has a series of posts up on the intersection between feminism and “alpha males.” In his latest post (part three of the series), he writes:

The first prominent train of thought in this regard is along the lines of “the term “alpha male” is just too fuzzy a term (or is an inappropriate term, or is the out-and-out wrong term to use here)” to the point that, rather than helping us understand the realationships between men (and women, and those of other various genders) and feminism, it actually gets in the way.

I’m all aboard this train of thought; I’m never exactly sure what “alpha male” means at any given time. Sometimes it seems to be an application of observations about animal behavior to humans (the “evo-psych definition”); other times it seems to be more a way of dividing people up into “winners” and “losers” (the “ranking definition”).

The Evo-Psych Definition

The evo-psych definition is adapted from whatever other animals fit the speaker’s stereotypes; the Wikipedia entry on the subject refers to chimpanzees and canines.

I think one of the most telling aspects of evolutionary psychology is how we often compare different genders to different species. Men are compared to wolves; women are compared to birds; both are compared to whatever species of primate supports the author’s point.

The Ranking Definition

More often, though, “alpha male” is simply used in a loose sense to denote a set of traits which are loosely correlated at best. This is the conventional definition that people, even those who don’t buy into the evo-psych basis, throw around. Alpha males are rich, powerful, strong, confident, good-looking, extroverted, popular, aggressive, attractive leaders. “Beta males,” by inference, lack these qualities.

Jeff writes:

And yet–we do have to consider that people throw this term around as if it does mean something definite, as if it were something simple and easy to recognize (or create in yourself).

I don’t agree that because people use the term, there’s something to it. By lumping disparate characteristics into a single category, associations between them are supported or fabricated. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy: we expect men who meet a few of these standards to meet the rest, and so we assume the qualities that aren’t there. Also implicit in this definition (and reinforced by the overtones of Brave New World) is the idea of a hierarchy – alpha males are seen as superior to beta males, and beta males are expected to aspire to become alpha males. Alpha males are “winners”; beta males are “losers”. Who wants to be a loser?

“Alpha Males” and Feminism

The context of these discussions is how the categories of “alpha male” and feminist intersect. Jeff’s point in his first post was that the two categories are incompatible insofar as “alpha male” establishes a hierarchy of domination:

Given the flavors of feminism that I tend to embrace, the very notion of the ‘alpha male’–here used in a loose way, like most people use it, I think–can be seen as anti-feminist inasmuch as one’s feminism embraces non-dominance/hierarchic thinking and one’s alpha male-ness embraces domanance/hierarchy.

I think it’s no coincidence that a Google search for “alpha male” turns up a lot of “seduction” sites, often explicitly anti-feminist, telling men how to procure the attention, affection, and bodies of women by acting like an “alpha male.” The idea of “alpha male,” no matter whether we’re using an evo-psych or ranking definition, is inextricably tied up in anti-feminist ideas of access and entitlement to women. It’s also implicit in a lot of the denials of male privilege out there – the claim is that male privilege is reserved for the “alphas”, and therefore isn’t really about gender at all.

Over on Alas, Stentor turns the argument around and asks can “beta males” be pro-feminists? His argument:

Looking at the feminist and (pro)feminist responses to the alpha male question, though, it seems that it’s alpha male (pro)feminists whose existence is unproblematic. Indeed, the paradigm case of (pro)feminist action — boldly calling out another man on his sexist behavior — is also a classically alpha male act. So perhaps we should be asking whether it’s possible for beta males to be (pro)feminists.

It’s an interesting comeback, but not one I can support. For one thing, it’s very rooted in extrovert privilege; while feminism is typically going to involve men abandoning a comfortable status quo, and shyness is not an excuse to condone sexism, I don’t believe it should be required for introverts to act like extroverts to be accepted as feminists. For another, it’s a fallacy to think that the only way one can call another man out on sexism is with “alpha male” tactics. And, of course, it still perpetuates the alpha/beta hierarchy, which to my mind is incompatible with feminism.

It’s been proposed that, instead of distinguishing between “alpha” and “beta”, we focus on the distinction between “aggressive” and “assertive.” I like this distinction better insofar as it focuses on classifying behaviors rather than people.