Tag: gender cultism

Obscuring the Male Gaze

tekanji

I have been meaning to make this post for ages now (pretty much ever since Ragnell put out her first call for subs for the feminist carnival), but unfortunately it has come at a time where I’m freaking out over my last minute arrangements. This will, in fact, be my last real post for a while (more details to follow in my actual last post for a while).

When Ragnell put up what she thought was a fairly neutral image of Diana (that’s Wonder Woman, the Amazon warrior for justice and peace and stuff, for those of you not in the know) reading. I looked at it and “perfect example of the male gaze” is what stared right back at me. Me – thinking nothing of making such a comment on a blog by a woman who waxes poetically about the colour yellow and what it means when used in a Green Lantern comic – well, let’s just say I was surprised that pretty much none of her regulars agreed with me. At all. Even Ragnell herself wasn’t fully on board with my interpretation.

And that got me thinking: Have we become so desensitized to female sexuality that it reads as “neutral” to us when not in an obvious setting?

I. “Male Gaze”? “Objectification”? Say what?

Before we get into the actual image critique, I’d like to clarify what I mean by “male gaze” and “objectification”. A “gaze” in this instance refers to the mesages conveyed to us, the people viewing the image, by said image. Specifically, the “male gaze” is pertinent because most comic book audiences are assumed to be male. I’m going to turn to Wikipedia for more information. While the passage focuses on “advertising”, the same arguments can be made in terms of this comic panel.

This idea of power relationships within the gaze can be continued to analyse gendered power relationships in the depictions of women in advertising. Some advertising presents women in a sexual manner, and it is argued that this degrades women because of the power that the gaze provides for heterosexual men viewing these advertisements.

In short: I believe that the way the artist has chosen to depict Diana (and to a lesser extent, the other Amazons) puts her on display for the presumably male audience. In that sense, she is objectified. Which leads me to my next explanation.

Objectification, in its fullest sense, is to turn a human (or, in this case, the written/drawn representation of a human) into an object. I don’t think that the artist has completely dehumanized Diana in the panel, but I do believe that he has appropriated her sexuality for the pleasure of his viewers. Since she’s not real, she doesn’t have a say either way, but I think it’s important to see how objectification in popular culture can bleed into the way people view and treat actual people.

II. The Making of an Amazon Utopia

Exhibit A: Original
Exhibit A: Original

This is the image in its original, unaltered form. On the surface, it seems like the “Paradise Island” the text at the top says it is: blue skies, blue water, statues and temples (reminiscent of Greek/Roman society, which is a time that Western society associates with civility, peace, and great learning). The women are splashing around in the water, playing instruments, reading, and being altogether happy. And the fruit and wine glass are a nice touch: we often associate such items with wealth and leisure.

That reading is where most of the commenters stopped. And, indeed, it’s the reading they kept bringing up every time I was like, “x, y, z is why I see objectification.” And, I can understand it. There are many elements to a carefree utopia here. Diana isn’t breaking her back to puff out her boobs, and she actually has an outfit that has some give in it. Although, as one commenter pointed out, there’s no way anyone would ever actually be able to read over their shoulder like that.

Exhibit B: Without all those pesky distractions
Exhibit B: Without all those pesky distractions

I’ve taken the liberty to present an image of Diana alone. Although she’s not the only problematic image in the scene (in my comments I took issue with other elements of the group, as well as the depiction of the group as a whole), she is the one our eye is drawn to since she’s in the forefront and the largest element in the panel.

Hopefully now the reason behind my sexual objectification reading will be more apparent. Without the idyllic elements as a distraction, it’s easier to see Diana’s cleavage, her slightly spread legs, and her half-lidded eyes. Even the wineglass doesn’t look so innocent anymore. Still, perhaps she is not “come hither” enough, so I have quickly thrown together a third image.

Exhibit C: Now with pillows!
Exhibit C: Now with pillows!

I wanted to put her on a bed, but creating a convincing one would have taken too long. Still, red pillows are enough to set an erotic tone. Can anyone now tell me with a straight face that Diana isn’t even somewhat looking like she’s ready for a romp in the hay… er, pillows? That there’s nothing sexual about her? All I did was add a few red pillows, folks. That’s it. I have a thousand and one pictures of me (reading, computing, whatever) that I could add red pillows until the cows come home and I still wouldn’t look sexy.

III. Conclusion

One of the reasons this picture jumped out at me so clearly was that, on the surface, it was innocuous. It wasn’t the overt T&A, dehumanization shot that most female super heroes have to contend with. Just a nice, sweet scene with Diana reading while her sisters play in the water. My point, however, is that even in scenes that are supposed to be “neutral” women cannot escape the burden of being the sex class. Diana is not supposed to be seen as sexual in this panel. She is supposed to read as neutral, and perhaps a bit nerdy.

Yet, the sexualization of women is so ingrained in our culture, that a women’s paradise is still drawn for the male gaze, with T&A (literally) at the forefront. In some ways, this kind of thing is more insidious than the obvious reduction of women to sex objects that is found in most comics; at least then most people can see what is being done. Here, I’m not even sure that the artist himself realized what he was doing. And that is a scary thought.

Ultimate Utopia, Indeed

tekanji
Ultimate Utopia...?
When Squaresoft meets fans with video skills you get… Ultimate Utopia…?

So, OS.CB reader darth sidhe pointed me in the direction of a fan-made flash movie of a live action RPG. It’s actually a pretty well done production and many parts of it I was nodding my head and saying, “Yep, that always happens to me!” Now, let me make it clear right off the bat: I liked this movie. I thought it was a fun, funny, and well-done piece.

But I am nothing if not a feminist interested in the intersection of gender and video games, and so it logically follows that when watching this, even through my enjoyment, I spotted areas that were problematic in terms of gender representation (the racial representation didn’t sit right with me, either, but that’s not really my area of expertise). And me, being the obsessive blogger I am (packing for Japan? taking care of last minute arrangements for school? never!), wanted to blog on it. So, watch the flash movie then come back and read what I have to say about it (I command thee!).

I. The Making of a Utopia

I find the choice of name (“Ultimate Utopia”) to be rather interesting. I don’t know if it’s based off of a name of a game that Square released, or if it was just randomly pulled out of a hat of “likely names for a Square game”. Either, or neither, is possible. But, especially given the discussion on what makes up a utopia over at Ragnell’s place, I have to say naming it as they did makes me wonder if the creators thought about what the title might convey to watchers – especially given the obvious hierarchies inherent in the game/movie.

On the one hand, it could be said that the adventurers are seeking out said Utopia. That the world they live in – the world we see them in – is one without safety, without equality, and with every object you pick up having the possibility of drawing you into a nasty battle. On the other hand, it’s also possible that the world is supposed to represent an “ultimate utopia” for gamers – haven’t we all wished at one point or another to be part of a video game? In that case, the kind of “utopia” conveyed to the watcher is actually rather disturbing; it is a world where might makes right, where strict gender and race castes are observed, and where danger lurks around every corner.

II. You’re the Character Now, Man

Character Selection Screen As is traditional with Squaresoft games, continuing a game in Ultimate Utopia will lead you to a character selection screen. The names for the three games are, respectively, Kyle, Danny, and Man. Kyle’s game has the characters we will learn to know and love, while Danny’s game seems to represent Grease (the area is called “Rydell High”), and Man’s game plays on the lack of diversity of Square’s NPCs – as all the characters in it are Man himself.

I’d like to draw attention to the fact that the only woman in all three save games is the one in Kyle’s game. Kyle Moore, the leader, has in his party: Tunaidi Ansari, James Yao, and Megan Greener. She is, predictably, the last character in line when the game opens on their location.

III. A Woman After Square’s Heart

Say What?As this flash movie is as much a parody of Squaresoft as it is a tribute, I was not surprised to find that Megan is the stereotypical magic user. Not just any magic user, however, but the physically weak healer. Her HP is a staggeringly low 191, as compared to the others who have anywhere from 954 to 1023. As the healer, her MP is the highest: 360, as compared to 54 (the highest MP next to hers). Her weapon of choice? The staff. It does 12 damage, yay!

Throughout the battle, Megan is trashed time and time again. Daniel, their adversary, takes her down to 11 HP with his first hit. Of course, instead of focusing on healing her, the player does a “heal all” which gives her back a whopping 5HP. Bringing her total up to 16. For his next attack, Daniel goes for “Copyright Infringement” and takes Megan down with a hit that does 571 damage. Can we say “overkill”? At least when she gets revived she’s back up to full health. For all the good it does her, seeing as she gets “blown away” in Daniel’s next attack.

When she returns, does she heal her party (like, you know a healer *should*)? Nope. Mr. Player (and yes, he’s a man) has her do an “MP Up” spell. Learn how to play! Well, perhaps I was too hasty in my condemnation; running through the movie again, I realize that her only options appear to be “Heal All” (fat lot of good that spell does), “MP Up” (another useless one), and “Suicide”. I’m guessing the fact that Megan is vastly underpowered is a critique on Square’s use of women, or at least I hope it is.

But, the torture of Megan is far from over. Daniel’s next attack, Clap, is a confusion spell. Which misses everyone but Megan, and stays with her past death. I mean swoon. I mean… what the devil are kids calling it these days? The caveat, of course, is that Megan lands the killing blow (while still confused) after all of her teammates have been killed by Daniel’s devastating “Apocalypse Now” attack.

IV. Conclusion

Like I said before, I liked this movie. It was a funny parody, a nice tribute, and having watched it a second time I’m beginning to think that it may have also been a subtle critique of some of Square’s staple archetypes (like the lack of NPC diversity and gendered stereotypes). And, really, I would much rather them deal with Megan’s plight (the plight of practically all female characters in one way or another) by drawing attention to it instead of having it be part of the background noise.

An Open Letter to Geeky Guys (Non-geeks may learn something, too):

tekanji

Listen, I’m really glad that some of you are into the whole gender deconstruction thing. I think it’s great that you don’t want to just oogle the pixeled female bits. Really. But, guys? It’s not so cute when all your ‘deconstruction’ does is reaffirm women’s position as Second Class Geeks.

What am I talking about? Well, you can find examples on it all over the net. You can find one on this blog, addressed to your gaming cousins. For a more recent, and in-depth example, let’s take I Enjoy Playing a Girl from the latest Escapist issue.

Like most of you, Chris Dahlen, the author, has his heart in the right place as far as I can tell. He says things like, “I have to believe any serious gamer would rather roleplay their characters than ogle them,” and, “[f]or all our assurances that men and women have the same talents and potential, treating them exactly the same feels like ducking an issue, rather than leveling a playing field.” I think he hits on what could be a very insightful argument, if you know, he had bothered to flesh it out. The myth of gender equality through equal stats is an issue that deserves attention.

But, apparently in this male-normative society, that’s too much to ask from your average geek male writing on women’s issues. Wait, wait, wait. What’s male-normative? Basically where men are the default and women are the Other (sort of what Dahlen’s entire premise is for his article). Well, let’s just take a look at Dahlen’s language for an example, shall we?

He gives his potential male characters a wide variety of personalities: “Am I the noble hero?” he asks himself, “A backstabbing thief? An insecure wisecracker?… [A]n alpha male…?” So, what does he say of his female characters? “[P]laying a girl puts me in far more neutral territory.” As the default for human, the man gets to choose from a range of archetypes that come easily to Dahlen’s mind. The woman, as Other, doesn’t get to do any of that “normal” stuff; she gets to be “neutral territory.” I’d also like to point out that it falls into mandatory gender roles: the active male versus the passive (neutral) female.

His language is your language, guys. Your gut reaction, I’m sure, is to step up and say, “No, I’m not like that!” Maybe you’re not. Maybe you are. But, ask yourself, do you hear it when other people do it? Can you find other examples of it in his article? If I hadn’t pointed it out, would you have even thought twice about what he said?

Another thing to chew on: when you’re like “omfg geek girls rawk plz introduce for a date” it’s not endearing. In fact, it is another way you reduce us to the status of Second Class Geek. I can hear it now, “Why can’t you just take a compliment?!” Or, “Jeez, don’t be so sensitive. I would kill to get that kind of attention.” I’m sure you would. And I’m sure to you it would be as flattering as you mean your comments to be. But, just sit back and think on why that is. Here’s a hint: Your personal agency in geekdom is never questioned, but ours is always qualified by hypothetical male attraction/attachment.

Let’s see this at work, shall we? Again, I’m going to pick on Dahlen. He says [emphasis mine]:

Geek guys don’t look up to the high school quarterbacks that smacked us in the locker room; we’re more impressed by the complicated but confident geek girls, who actually talked to us in the library and always seemed more sure of themselves than the rest of school, no matter who teased them. And now they can slay giants. Who wouldn’t want to be one of them?

Now, the whole “sexy (geek) girls who kick ass” thing he invokes has its own problems. Ignoring that, however, let me just say something…

We

Are N-O-T

Geeks For You!

Is that clear enough? Is it? I really hope so, because I am going to pull out my Sword of Smiting with a +5 modifier against Privileged Asshats on the next geeky man who thinks geeky women are good because he might get a date. If I sound hostile, try having your geek status always put second to that of your sex/gender for a few years and see how happy you are.

I am sick of my status as Second Class Geek. I am sick of beeing seen as the hawt girl geek. I’m not a geek for the dating pool. And, you know what? Treating me as if I am? So not helping your case. We female geeks are geeks because we have geeky interests. Period. You would do well to remember that next time you want to open your big mouth and reduce us to T&A.

(Hat Tip: New Game Plus)

Attractiveness, Disabilities, and Feminism

lake-desire

There is a post on feminist_rage today on a topic I haven’t read about before: the intersection of ablism, sexism, and attractiveness. LiveJournal user mahlia miles writes about being a conventionally attractive woman using a wheelchair, faced with chivalry and masculine entitlement:

I hate feeling like a side show. As a pretty woman in a wheelchair, boy, I am quite the novelty in people’s day.

I sometimes see ablism–power and prejudice over those perceived as having a disability–included in lists of forms of oppression. But it’s still to easy to forget how having a disability can intersect with other the other -isms because people with disabilities are all too often rendered invisible by the rest of society.

I fucking HATE the fact that men have used my disability and “need for help” to get close to me. The next fucker who puts his hands on my chair, trying to get his good-citizen jollies and maybe a phone number, is going to get yelled at publicly on a city bus. I hate the feeling of looking over and realizing that the guy who’s been staring at me for the past fifteen minutes, trying to get my attention, is now three inches away from my face because he’s “trying to help” get the buckles off my chair. HE’S TOUCHING MY CHAIR, which is a hell of a lot like TOUCHING ME.

Shout back! Challenge the stereotypes marginalized people are expected to fill. And to that “nice guy”: using a wheelchair is not an invitation to invade someone else’s space. Helping someone, when asked, is polite. Being polite is fine, but it does not entitle you to anything, including touching someone without her invitation.

Feminism in 10 Things I Hate About You

tekanji

I recently watched 10 Things I Hate About You for like the fourth time. A modern remake of Shakespeare’s Taming of the Shrew, it is a love story that follows a senior in high school, her younger sister, and the various men who become entangled in their lives. I admit I have a soft spot for cheesy romantic comedies and there’s something about 10 Things that really resonates with me. Maybe it’s because I can relate to Kat, the protagonist.

You see, Kat is a feminist. A staunch one, at that. She’s an intelligent, witty, strong-willed woman who isn’t afraid to speak her mind, even if it gets her tossed out of her English class on a regular basis. And yet, even as I applaud her character, I am troubled by the way she (and her feminism) was represented. As always with these things, I’m putting a spoiler warning up for those who haven’t seen the movie yet.

I. The Making of a (The) Feminist

Kat is, in many ways, your typical middle-class, white feminist: she’s familiar with Simone De Beauvoir, has read The Feminine Mystique, likes indie girl bands, hates the rigid social roles of society… you get the idea. If that weren’t enough for the audience to label her has The Feminist, there is a scene (which I will deal with in more depth later on) where she goes on a diatribe in her English class about the exclusion of female authors from the reading list.

In addition to being The Feminist, she’s also The Bitch. Seen as an anti-social man-hater with a serious attitude problem. Sound familiar? Yup, that’s what all women who don’t play to the patriarchy’s tune get labelled, feminist or no. In any case, her anti-social tendencies, which are implicitly tied to her feminism, are shown to be a shield that she uses to keep people out (and therefore keep herself from being hurt). Not only is the whole “man-hater” stereotype invoked, but by showing her feminism as something she uses as a “keep away” sign, the movie isn’t doing the movement justice on what it really is about: recognizing and fighting oppression, especially women’s, in order to achieve a culture of equality.

But, the best is yet to come. How Kat became a feminist is never explicitly addressed, but it is revealed that she was popular one night and then gave it up for reasons unknown to those around her. What was the reason? Well, she had a night of regrettable sex with Joey, The Misogynist (who, at the start of the movie, is out to fuck her little sister), when they dated in ninth grade; then, when she refused to continue conjugal relations, he dumped her. It was then, she said, that she realized that she shouldn’t do things for anyone but herself. I like that her feminism is linked to doing something for herself, but we still have the movie playing into another stereotype: feminist consciousness can only arise when a woman has been burned by a man.

II. The Outsiders’ Views

Most of the people at the beginning of the movie view Kat as being, well, The Bitch (aka. The Bitter Feminist). Throughout the movie, that view changes (as hopefully the audience’s view of her changes) and by the end, she is portrayed in a mostly positive light. Of course, by that time she has also gone through some changes and has accepted Pat into her life. Of those who interact with her, it is her teacher (Mr. Morgan), her family, and Pat who are most important to her feminism (well, Joey as well, but he’s sort of cross-sectional so I won’t give him his own space).

Of all of the people, Mr. Morgan’s relationship with Kat is the most problematic. On the one hand, he always makes a point to jump down the throats of her detractors. Joey’s misogyny never goes undetected in his class, and he makes a point of shaming him at the end of the movie. I also felt that he had some kind of respect for Kat, because underneath his snark he seems to crave her usual analysis. Indeed, the one time she doesn’t offer any criticism, he is at a loss.

On the other hand, he publicly shames her as easily as her detractors and he sends her, and only her, to the office. He also always prefaces his calling on her to speak with phrases like, “here we go,” which I know from experience is hurtful because it carries the intent to shame. In the scene where she complains about the lack of women in the school’s reading list, he (rightfully) points out that there aren’t any people of colour, either. However, the way he does so not only plays the “hierarchy of oppressions” game (which I’m not too fond of because, depending on your angle, you can come out with a thousand different answers for the question, “which oppression is the root of all oppressions?”), but also invalidates her, her opinions, and her feminism.

His words are as follows:

I know how difficult it must be for you to overcome all those years of upper middle class suburban oppression. It must be tough.

But the next time you storm around the PTA crusading for better lunch meat, or whatever it is you white girls complain about, ask them why they can’t buy a book written by a black man!

I don’t know exactly how the audience is supposed to take Mr. Morgan (someone with real knowledge of oppression, as opposed to Kat? The Angry Black Man, as stereotyped and maligned as The Feminist?), but I have a feeling that most wouldn’t see that, while he stands there accusing her of white privilege, he is able to do so because of his male privilege. His ability to invalidate her (reducing her struggle against oppression to “storm[ing] around the PTA crusading for better lunch meat”) comes, not from his authority as a teacher, or his minority status as a black person, but from the power conferred to him by our society as a man: the privilege to dismiss one without power. The same power, I might add, that he is able to see in her while she was rattling of a list of white feminist authors. It also stuck in my mind that he said black man rather than black person. What, are authors like Bell Hooks and Zora Neale Hurston not good enough for him? Again, I call male privilege. Snuck in there snugly at the end of his diatribe as it was, I’m not sure the audience was intended to catch it and make the connection.

Kat’s relationship with her family is a more clear-cut progression. Things begin with the audience, and Kat herself, believing that her father and sister think she’s an off-base bitchy, man-hater. Indeed, the whole premise that started the wacky chain of events between Pat and Kat (yipes, that rhymes) was because Walter (the father), knowing Kat’s dislike of dating, said that Bianca (the younger sister) could date when only Kat did. There was also a dispute over Kat’s choice of colleges, where her father forbids her to leave the area because he wouldn’t have any control over her life. Bianca’s stated opinion of her is no better; in the course of the film, she calls her sister anti-social, a bitch, says that she’s ruining her life, etc. She looks down upon her for not wanting to be in the in-crowd, as well.

Yet, it’s made clear to the audience that some of Kat’s independence and unwillingness to play the social game at the cost of herself has rubbed off on Bianca. She begins as the Queen Bee style socialite, using Cameron for her own purposes and trying to get with Joey. But, a night with Joey’s narcissism leads her to begin questioning those beliefs. In the end, she realizes that she was being the heinous bitch (to Cameron) and rectifies things. When Joey comes around, frustrated for being effectively dumped, and decks her boyfriend, Bianca wastes no time punching him, saying, “That’s for making my date bleed,” and again with, “That’s for my sister,” and, finally, she knees him in the crotch, “And that’s for me.” I swear I cheered when I saw that; it seemed to me that it was a vindication of female agency. Cameron wasn’t defending her honour for her, she was defending it for herself.

Walter’s part is not nearly as detailed, but he wasn’t a main character, either. After prom, he and Kat have a chat about what happened. When she tells him about Bianca’s altercation with Joey, she asks if he’s upset that she (Kat) has rubbed off on her (Bianca). He says that no, in fact, he’s impressed. He does his little father explaining why he’s been an overbearing parent thing and tells her that he’s sent in the check for her to attend the college she wanted to.

For the most part, Patrick doesn’t see Kat’s personality as something to be derided. There are a few odd comments here and there, such as the one about female bands as “chicks who can’t play their instruments,” but overall he seems to take her attitude in stride. My guess would be that it’s because he is a similar type; his “bad boy” reputation, much like her “man-hating” one, is overrated and mostly fabricated. Indeed, when talking about why Kat thinks they act the way they do, he talks about her attitude of living up to her own expectations (rather than other people’s) as disappointing them “from the start.” Yet, he makes a point of saying that she has never disappointed him. Even his comment about the indie girl bands seems to be a fabrication for Cameron’s benefit, as he says that he can’t “be seen” at Kat’s favourite club, and when he goes there it’s made clear that he’s on friendly terms with the bartender. In the prom scene, he gets her favourite band to play by calling in a favour.

III. Conclusion

Even after laying all this out, there are a few things about 10 things that continue to bother me. The fact that the portrayal of her as The Bitter Feminist was never outright questioned outside of an off-hand comment or two makes me feel as if the silence is, in some ways, legitimizing the negative stereotypes utilized in characterizing her. I’m also still not happy about the way the movie pitted oppressions against each other in the scenes with Mr. Morgan.

But, despite the problems in the treatment of Kat and her beliefs, I feel that the movie didn’t do a terrible job portraying feminism. In the end Kat was pretty well vindicated; Joey was turned down in the most humiliating way by her sister, her father decided to treat her as an adult, she got to go to the school she wanted to, and she found someone who could both understand, and appreciate, who she was.

All we want for the holidays…

tekanji

December tis the season to be consuming. We all love gifts but, more than that, companies love selling them to us. There is likely a gift guide for everyone, their families, and even their pets of choice out there. Enter HUB magazine’s “Holiday Gift Guide” edition.

Cover for HUB's Dec 2005 EditionWhy, you may ask, do I have a HUB on me? Do I subscribe to their magazine? Well, no. I was at an electronic’s store with my cousin, picking up some stuff to mod my GC with, and the cover caught my eye. One look at it should tell you why. At first it was just that I wanted to explore the image itself: What was the significance of putting a woman on the magazine’s cover? What about the use of glasses, a white collared shirt, and bound hair to make her a non-sexual nerd? How does this representation compare to the oversexualization of geek women that is becoming a part of the status quo?

When I began examining the text surrounding her (it was definitely a good idea to have the “Stocking stuffers” text on the top and far from her breasts), however, I saw “Gifts for her” and my heart began to sink. Please, I thought to myself, please don’t be another fru-fru, tech-lite, Nintendogs-touting POS. If wishes were horses I’d own a very sucessful stable.

But, before I go into the breakdown of the list itself, let’s take a look at the other gift guides offered: Flash drive MP3 players, Portable PCs, Gifts for kids, and a Console gaming gift guide. No, “gifts for him” or “gifts for teenagers” or whatever. Just kids, women, and guides for everyone else (read: teenage boys and adult men). I’d also like to point out that running gifts for “her” with gifts for “kids” sets the stage for the infantalization of women by putting them on the same level as children in the tech arena. In that light, the little girl depicted on the “Gifts for kids” page isn’t as cool as it might be otherwise.

Now that the introduction is out of the way, ket’s delve into the 7 “great gift ideas for the girl geeks on your holiday shopping list.” The list is written and compiled by Erin Bell, proving that internalized sexism is alive and kicking.

Kodak EasyShare Picture Viewer

If the card sleeve of your giftee’s wallet is in danger of breaking loose because it’s crammed full of photos of assorted family, friends and pets, the Picture Viewer can provide a digital solution for storing and showing – and these pictures won’t get dog-eared. Simply import pictures to the device via USB (it has 32MB of internal memory), or insert an SD or MMC card and use the navigational buttons to cycle through images on the Picture Viewer’s 64 mm (2.5 inch) colour screen. The credit card-sized device comes with a tan leather carrying case.

What immediately strikes me is the “easy” part in this. It assumes that the woman you’re buying for either wouldn’t want or wouldn’t be able to handle a more complex model, but isn’t the point of being a “geek” (as the introduction text implies these women are) not being scared of more technical pieces? Especially since any camera that has the word “easy” in it is definitely sacrificing quality for ease of use. Not bad for casual users, but I’d take professional over easy any day.

Targust Kaleidoscope Mouse

In addition to being a functional USB optical mouse, the clear plastic portion of the Kaleidoscope lights up in a cycle of seven rotating colours as long as the computer it’s attached to is powered on. The Kaleidoscope also comes in a smaller version with a retractable uSB cable for notebooks, which retails for $29.99.

A mouse that “lights up in a cycle of seven rotating colours” sounds cute, but not exactly on the top of the list of geeky toys. I must say I’m suspicious of it, especially since it buys into the idea that all women love pretty/bright colours to the exclusion of usability and form. Only tangentially related, but why is it that only mini-mice for laptops have retractable cables? There are times when having one in a large mouse would be completely useful.

Belkin iPod cases

As part of its extensive line-up of iPod accessories, Belkin offers a range of leather cases to fit iPods of all shapes and sizes. Standouts include the Sports Leather Case for iPod Mini, which comes with an armband, hand band and removable blet clip; the Caribiner Case for iPod nano in white, pink, blue or black; and the Classic Leather Case for iPod shuffle which includes a ring for attaching a lanyard, and comes in two different three-packs – the more reserved red, white and black, or a funkier set of pink, orange, and green.

This one buys into the stereotype that women, as inherent shopaholics, are in love with anything that might be seen as an “acessory”. Also, and this isn’t to knock the iPod or anything, but it is often seen as a “woman friendly” device. I do, however, have to give points for including a “sports” case as one of the highlighted picks, and not hyping up the stereotypically girly pink in the colours.

Hasboro iDog

This robotic puppy’s favourite food is music, and it can be “fed” tunes by plugging in an MP3 or CD player, or simply setting it in front of any sound source. The iDog’s forehead will light up in an array of pleasing rainbow-coloured patterns based on what genre of music it’s listening to – yellow for hip hop and red for rock, for example. Pet its head and touch its nose to interact with it further, and a personality will start to develop as it barks, growls, plays little musical ditties and lights up in various patterns to communicate its mood. When a sound source is plugged into the iDog, it functions as a speaker – and not a bad one at that, given its price. If you’re giving it as a gift, just make sure to have two AA batteries and a Phillips screwdriver (for installing them) on hand to avoid Christmas morning disappointment.

Do I even need to comment on this one? I think this line says it all: The iDog’s forehead will light up in an array of pleasing rainbow-coloured patterns…

Targus “Jackie” and “Katherine” laptop totes

Resembling oversized purses, the “Jackie” and “Katherine” laptop totes from Targus offer ladies a more elegant and higher-end alternative to the traditional laptop backpacks and shoulder bags. The top-loading bags have long straps designed to be ablet o fit overa winter coat, and stainless steal “feet” to prevent the bottom of the bag from scuffing. The “Jackie” comes in black or red leather, while the “Katherine” comes in black and white tweed pattern. For the budget conscious, there’s also the black nylon “Jayne” model for $59.99.

This suggestion cashes in again on the accessory stereotype, this time outright linking it to women with the cases being described as “oversized purses” that “offer ladies a more elegant” laptop bag. I wonder if they have “not a man-purse!” laptop bags for men that have names like “Butch” and “Spike”.

Nintendo DS Nintendogs Bundle

Nintendo is releasing a few hardware bundles in time for the holidays, one of which pairs the new teal or pink coloured Nintendo DS portable dual-screen system with a special “Best Friends” version of the popular dog owning simulation Nintendogs. Nintendogs “Best Friends” features the six most popular breeds – Labrador Retriever, Golden Retriever, German Shepherd, Beagle, Yorkshire Terrier, and Miniature Dachshund. Like the previous three versions of the game, additional breeds (like Pug, Husky and Shiba Inu) can be unlocked.

No “for her” list would be complete without a reference to Nintendogs. Because women (and only women) love the cute widdle dawgies and therefore must own Nintendogs under threat of expulsion from the cult of femininity. It’s lists like these that make me wary to buy the blue DS because of its affiliation with Nintendogs. Sigh.

Philippe Starck digital watch by Fossil

For a digital watch with some flair, check out the Philippe Starck watch from Fossil, which comes in pink or orange with digital display, two alarms, chronography and countdown timers, and a unique rubber strap.

The watch, pictured on the page, is neon orange with a huge display in captial block letters. Picked, I presume, for its cutsey, easy to read design.

If taken on their own, none of these suggestions are heinous. None are items that I’d be interested in, but some women might. However, the harm comes from them being the only suggestions on a list that’s supposedly for “geek” girls. Add that to the fact that most other geek-oriented “for her” lists out there spew the same kind of BS and it is tantamount to gender segregation. Boys get all the “hardcore” geek toys, while girls need to stick to the fluffy, the colourful, the feminine. The truth is, it’s not as easy as saying Nintendogs is for girls (not true) and leaving it at that, because stereotypes like that fall short of reality.

No one’s saying girls can’t like fru-fru things, but we shouldn’t be relegated to them. And, on the same note, men shouldn’t be shamed into avoiding the “feminine” tech toys, either. What geeks, and non-geeks, like has nothing to do with what’s between our legs and everything to do with our individual personalities. So, please, if you’re going to write a “for her” list, don’t rely on stereotypes to compile your list; go out there and find what real girl geeks are into.

Build, Order, Whine [My Voodoo, Part 1]

tekanji

So, I ordered myself a Voodoo laptop today. After a frustrating website experience, I decided to write up a series on how my Voodoo weathers the next few years. Seeing as I just ordered it, and therefore cannot write about the machine itself, I decided to make this an introduction/rant about the website.

As soon as I get it (which, given that I’m going to be in Miami for the next two months, better be a month after it arrives), I’m going to write a First Impressions post on it, and then I’ll update things whenever a new problem crops up. Because you know problems are gonna come up.

I. Why Voodoo?

Ringing in at a whopping 4186.96 USD, my Voodoo Envy 732 qualifies as the most expensive computer I’ve ever bought. It’s a few hundred dollars shy of being more expensive than my current desktop (hand built, mid-line for its time) and laptop (light weight, best bang for buck) combined. I knew there was a reason why I never told Dad what I wanted for a birthday present last July. Happy birthday to me. If I didn’t have to rely on it for my computing and gaming needs for the next 3-5 years, there’s no way I would have spent that much, so the darn thing better be worth it.

Let me give some of a back story: I had known I needed a new laptop to be my desktop replacement when I go to Japan in April for over a year, but I had decided to put it off until the last possible moment so as to get the best hardware I could. I was still annoyed about what happened with my Toshiba laptop – three months after I bought mine my sister got the same model with significantly better hardware. Although her software is even more screwy than mine, which has caused a bunch of problems for her.

I chose Voodoo not because I think that they’re the bestest laptop makers ever, but because my research didn’t turn up any major problems (except that they’re spotty with customer service, which I tend not to make use of anyway) and because I know from experience that whatever laptop I get will have problems that no one on the internet seemed to talk about. Like Toshiba with their massive overheating problems (mine is small, so it’s not terrible, but the larger model that my cousin and friend have get really hot really fast) and their odd software problems (both my and my sister have issues with our internet connections that have no discernible reason that I can find).

I also chose the company, I admit, because I liked the idea of having a decent degree of customization that they offered. My laptop style probably won’t be the only one like it in the world, but my guess is that it’ll be the only one like it at my school. And that’s cool. What’s not cool, however, is gendered designs.

Yes, you heard me, there are “boy” styles (read: tribal) and “girl” styles (read: animals). To their credit, the cost is the same for both. Some people may think it’s cool to do things this way, but I find it 1) annoying and 2) limiting. Annoying because what if a guy wanted the Phoenix design? I know some guys who would avoid it simply because it was labelled as a “girl” design, even if they liked it. Even if the phoenix had a special meaning to them. Limiting because breaking it into descriptive sections would make it easier to branch out into several other kinds of designs. I’d like to see celtic, or logos, etc. I ended up going with the Wheel of Time because I didn’t like any of the other tribals and I liked it better than the Phoenix animal.

They don’t gender their colours, which I like. I ended up with pink because it was the only colour I really liked. The red wasn’t awful, but it just didn’t look right for some reason. The green was a nasty shade. They call it “monza OLIVE” but it’s more of a forest olive. And an unattractive one at that. My ideal colour would have been a lime green, like my car. Oh well.

II. Have You People Even Heard of W3C?

Now, I had enlisted my mother’s partner as my sounding board for the purchase because something as significant as my only computer for the next 3-5 years of my life is not a purchase to make alone. He knows pretty much what I do about the hardware (which was not much about the specific devices, but a decent amount of the companies involved) and, aside from a fateful Gateway purchase back in the 90s, he has been pretty sensible about what computer he buys. My mom relies on him to do the initial footwork because she’s too lazy – I mean “busy” – to look stuff up on her own.

I went to the website and logged into my account. It was loading a lot slower on this connection than it had for me when I had been on my laptop in Vancouver, which was an annoyance but not necessarily the fault of Voodoo. I went to the laptop page and the first thing he said was that he wanted to see a comparison of the Middleweights (the style of laptop I wanted). Yeah, me too, buddy, me too.

There is no option to do a one-click comparison of all laptops in a given section. We tried clicking on a link called ‘See The Difference’ and the header picture, which was apparently Flash, went blank. Loading it in IE produced a Flash menu about their company, almost exactly the same as the navigation at the top of the page. Thanks, Voodoo. Thanks. I just love it when companies 1) don’t program for multiple browsers, and 2) abuse Flash, javascript, or any other potentially bandwith intensive goodies. Goodies should be used sparingly and with purpose, not for things that can be done better with straight up HTML.

So, then we were like, “Ok, there’s a little button named ‘Technical’ that might have it.” I clicked it. A blank javascript window appeared on the page, obscuring the description of the computer model, and Firefox went into its “Loading” animation and……………………………….did nothing for like a minute. At this point my mom’s partner was like, “Are you sure you want to buy from these people?” He was annoyed, rightly, that their website was a slow loading, Flash & JS intensive, obtuse POS. Me, too, but I just wanted my damn computer at this point and I didn’t want to go through the hassle of researching other sites and dealing with their BS, etc.

Eventually I got fed up, clicked the back button, then the forward button, then tried the Technical button again and it worked. Thankfully. So, yes, indeed there was a comparison chart that we then clicked.

A javascript window popped up. I’d just like to take the time to say just how much I hate pop up windows. I specifically have Firefox open them in new tabs because I hate them so much. Except that javascript doesn’t work that way. So much hatred. But, my annoyance aside, the window let us compare the Middleweights against the Heavyweights and I confirmed in my mind that yes, the Middleweights are for me. Most of the Heavyweights didn’t have as good of a video card as my 732, which is one of the biggest bottlenecks for gaming. My poor little Toshiba has like 32 megs at most. Maybe less. My 732 has a NVIDIA GeForce Go 7800 GTX GTX 256MB. Mm, tasty.

Fast forward through talking about pros and cons of weight, performance, battery, etc. I finally went to the build page and did a couple of upgrades: I got 2 GIGs of RAM instead of 1, a Seagate 100 gig 5400 instead of a Hitachi 60 gig 7200, an Intel M 750 instead of 740, and got MS Office Small Business Ed. I read through their TOS as specified, and got slightly annoyed that they referenced an Online Privacy Policy that was not defined anywhere, but not annoyed enough to wait until they open tomorrow to call and complain. Oh, just looked at a sheet I printed out. Apparently there was a link at the bottom of the previous page to it. Not that a Google search turned it up. Argh. Anyway, after another eternity of waiting for things to load, I finished placing my order.

III. My Journey Has Just Begun

“Your customized Voodoopc Machine has a 30 day ETA,” they say. We’ll see, Voodoo. We’ll see.

Empowerment Through Lipstick?

tekanji
Cosmetic ad from Feministe
Cosmetic ad from Feministe

Feministe has just reinforced how much I never want ads on my blog. I had the dubious pleasure of seeing this ad on the side of the blog; one of the three from blogads that Feministe runs. Normally I don’t pay attention to them, but this one caught my eye (it’s a moving gif) and I had to say I was angry and disappointed when I read the text.

Can someone tell me how buying into the beauty myth and mandatory makeup culture is empowering in any way, shape, or form? Thanks.

GQ's "Men" of the Year

tekanji
GQ's Men of the Year Covers
One of the guys?

In my first installment of my Girls & Game Ads series, I commented on a disturbing phenomenon in the portrayal of men versus women:

Another thing evident in this particular line-up is something I’ve noticed as another feature of video game advertising: images of women tend to have the large boobs as a focus (either by showing lots of skin or by having skin-tight costumes), while images of men tend to focus on the face, or show a heavily armoured (or clothed) man. While there are obviously exceptions to this (armoured/small breasted women, scantily-clothed men, etc), I posit that this dichotomy is one that is typical in advertisements for the gaming industry.

Enter GQ and its “Man of the Year” winners. With AOL News’ tagline Aniston Joins the Guys one would expect the cover to show a confident, strong Aniston with a focus on her head/face. But GQ, unfortunately, has chosen to take the same approach to the portrayal of men and women as I described above.

Aniston is the typical female (hero or villain) found in video game ads. Of the three covers, her face is the smallest. Her body shape is the most prominent display – showing clearly that it fits into the “normal” female shape (ie. skinny with round breasts). 50 Cent is the shot that is typical for knights, paladins, and dwarves: the primary focus is on his muscles and outfit, but his face is still large enough to convey distinct individuality. Vaughn shows the typical hero portrayal with the entire focus being on his face.

The reasoning behind these three candidates being chosen given in the AOL article furthers the “masculine” versus “feminine” dichotomy. All emphasis is mine.

Aniston first:

Aniston, 36, earned the 2005 title, Healy says, because she “exhibited a lot of poise, unbelievable amount of grace and good humor this year.”

Okay, now 50 Cent:

That the 30-year-old rapper has the year’s top-selling album, a best-selling autobiography and a new video game is just the start of his appeal. Now, he is crossing over into movies with the just-opened Get Rich or Die Tryin’. “He’s one of those public figures we’re endlessly fascinated by.”

And, finally, Vaughn:

With the summer’s movie hit, Wedding Crashers, Vaughn, 35, nailed the honor. “Once again, he was hilarious, charming and smart.” Editors do recognize that there are more well-known stars, “but there’s not one who better represents who our (readers) think is cool than Vince,” recently photographed enjoying a weekend in Chicago with Aniston.

Aniston is defined by the words “poise”, “grace”, and “good humor”. What kind of image does that call up in your mind, ’cause I know the first thing I thought was that they felt she was some sort of prim princess who takes everything with a smile. I don’t know anything about who Aniston may or may not be, but it seems like an insult for a woman who often plays strong minded, ambitious, and talented women in films to be described solely by words that belong in a decorum class rather than a discussion of the defining admirable talents/traits of a person.

The justification for 50 Cent’s inclusion seemed rather weak to me, but the selling points seemed to be what he had accomplished. He is defined by his “good” works (or what GQ deems is good, I suppose…) – the things he has done actively, and continues to do actively. To call him someone who posesses “poise” or “grace” (and perhaps even “good humor”, depending on context) would be an insult, or at least not be enough to qualfiy him for being a “man” of the year. Yet in Aniston it makes her the paragon of womanly virtue. Or something.

Finally, there’s Vaughn. He gets the highest praise of them all, with the adjectives “hilarious”, “charming”, and (most importantly) “smart”. No one calls Aniston (The Woman) smart, though her insistence to not be defined by the men in her life seem to imply that she is able to think for herself, or 50 Cent (The Black Man), which would be appropriate praise for someone who seems to have some entrepreneurial skills. No, Vaughn has “earned” the honour by playing a jerk who takes advantage of the wrong girl in Wedding Crashers. I could accept his performance being called “hilarious” and “charming” (because a character who’s a sexual predator seems to be the funniest thing ever to so many of the guys I know *sigh*), but smart? Come on. But maybe I’m being too harsh; Vaughn may have actually done something intelligent in his personal life to earn it.

Via feministing.