Re: hair theory - I hope you explore it more! It’s such an interesting theory that I’d hate to see it fall to the wayside ^^; In lieu of doing actual research you can always do what I do - find images on the net and examine them in context of the point you’re making.

I think we’re assuming the patriarchy is logical here. It’s NOT.

Wel, at least Santa Claus still exists. I can handle “logic” that makes my brain burn as long as I still get presents at Christmas. Oh, wait, I’m Jewish and we don’t celebrate Christmas. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO! ;.;

Seriously, though, you’re right. Of course, you being right doesn’t make it seem any less stupid to me that any company in their right mind would pass up opportunities to make more money, even with the driving need to stay “on top”. But then again if everyone used earth logic the world would be a much better place than it is now.

“if you’ve found any evidence to support it, how you feel that it influences society, etc.”

I don’t have any, which is the main reason I haven’t written anything about this.

RE: sexist game ad. That sounds awful. I just wanted to register that. Ugh.

“And, while we’re on the subject, why aren’t women a target audience?”

This is the key question, and can be asked about so many things: why are Barbeques marketing only to men, when they could make more profits marketing to both men and women? What about trucks? What about the whole sexist golf culture?

I think we’re assuming the patriarchy is logical here. It’s NOT. It’s driven by fear and by a ruthless drive to remain ON TOP. So that, even when car manufacturers could make higher profit margins appealing to women, or when Hollywood films could make more money by noticing which films are popular with women and duplicating them, they don’t.

(oooo! I see there’s a preview below now - excellent! Thank you.)

I guess it’s sort of a dual-thought, both the body/face thing as well as the covered/uncovered focus. Both, I think, underlie the question of individuality that Sour Duck was talking about with her hair theory.

With the male models, typically they’re defined by facial shots (faces, I think, are where the most vivid diversity between people can be seen) or body shots that draw attention to them as a whole, rather than the body itself.

The female models tend to focus on the body rather than on a unique face. Further obscuring the character’s individuality, most video game women (at least those who tend to be main characters and/or featured in ads/covers) tend to have a “cookie-cutter” shape: thin, small waist/big hips, big boobs (that often defy gravity). Put Rayne next to Lara Croft, for instance, and the similarity of their bodies will be striking. Even those characters who aren’t known for their busts tend to fit that general shape.

Of course, that just goes back to my original point: the female body is objectified in these ads and turned into nothing more than a commodity packaged for the “target” audience who, apparently, are mindless slaves to their cocks and wouldn’t want to buy a game in which the woman was seen as a person.

I find your take on the ’short hair : long hair :: male : female’ model fascinating. Can you elaborate on it at all? I’m curious as to how you came to that conclusion, if you’ve found any evidence to support it, how you feel that it influences society, etc.

This is quite interesting to me because I’ve been playing around with trying to figure out why short hair on men persists as a male privilege, wherease women are expected to have longer hair. I think part of it has to do with human-ness: men are allowed to have faces, natural and as points of emphases to underline their individuality; women are expected to soften their faces with surrounding hair, and to disguise and soften their features with makeup.

(BTW, I hate submitting comments here because I can’t preview them first - any chance you can incorporate this feature into your blog? Also, the window hides text I’m typing on the right-hand side - has anyone else experienced this problem? I’m using Windows IE 6.0.)