Tropes vs. Women Episode 1: Damsel In Distress

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Melissia**

Manchu wrote:
This character is portrayed in a sexualizing skirt in order to entice customers.

I agree.

I merely objected to the use of the term "skanky", which has very unfortunate implications-- not necessarily the overall message.

Manchu wrote:
And it does indeed bring up the issue of what about when actual women chose to wear sexualizing outfits.

The way someone dresses is their own choice, male or female. I mean, if a man goes to a beach in a "banana hammock" (an undergarment meant to emphasize male genitals), he's also sexualizing himself-- but just like the women who wear skimpy bikinis on the beach, I think it's perfectly okay. It's a complex issue as you say, because choice is extremely important to most people who discuss it.

**Sigvatr**

Cheesecat wrote:
Sigvatr wrote:
Cheesecat wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.

So would sex work (prostitution, phone sex, strippers, porn, etc) be sexist or would this be an exception?

I don't think you can put prostitution and phones sex / strippers in the same drawer.

I'm talking about sex workers which is anyone involved in the sex industry, I didn't make up the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_worker

Hmmm didn't know the term, apologies.

Regarding your initial question though, I guess it mostly depends on the circumstances - especially seeing that a lot of women are forced into prositution.

**Cheesecat**

Manchu wrote:

Cheesecat wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.
So would sex work (prostitution, phone sex, strippers, porn, etc) be sexist or would this be an exception?
I'd say all of those occupations rely on sexist tendency to see women as means rather than ends.

Would this apply to men as well (as far as I'm aware most sex workers are women)?

Cheesecat wrote:
being sexually attractive to lots of people
The mistake you've made again here is to assume that being called a slut, whore, skank, etc, implies one is attractive. Again, it does not.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

Manchu wrote:
HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I mean, come on. It's a skirt. It can't be promiscuous. The adjective is obviously meant to end up on the wearer.
The adjective also ends up on the observer. That's the point. The skirt cannot be promiscuous and, as I mentioned, we cannot judge what the character thinks about the skirt because we have no information to inform such a judgment. But we do have information to inform a judgement about what purpose a sexualized female image on the cover of a book serves.

I'll just quote your line in question so we're on the same page:

Manchu wrote:
The cover of that book is T&A -- well, not so much A as extremely skanky short school girl uniform skirt. The story summary begins with a naked female corpse. This is sexism rather than a commentary on sexism.

The problematic part is your use of the word "skanky." This is problematic because it:

1. supports a system where women are morally condemned based on our sexuality;
2. supports a system where women can be thus condemned based on how we dress;
3. supports your role in this system as someone who is qualified to thus judge women, as a man

It further says, to women reading the conversation, that this is something you feel you are prepared to do and that is appropriate for you to do. This is icky.

The easiest way to avoid this would have been to not use the word "skanky" at all (and as far as I'm concerned there's even less of a good reason to ever use that word than "slutty" or similar, because it's even stronger on the moral judgment) but you could probably have avoided it by saying something like, "what the artist may have intended to portray as skanky." That would move the moral judgment from you to the artist (though you're still invoking the moral framework to an extent) and while it might have made us uncomfortable it probably would have made it more likely that we'd feel dumb calling you out on it. That's good, right?

On the topic of the book itself. I feel obliged to point out it was published in November last year. Her statements are from, what - yesterday? So yeah. It even fits in her description of "I consciously benefited from it at times even when it made me feel bad."

**Manchu**

Melissia wrote:
The way someone dresses is their own choice, male or female.

Right -- unless that "person" is a fictional character. That's the issue we're dealing with. I particular, on this cover, we don't have enough information to even know if the character is being portrayed as dressing herself that way (she could have been dressed up like that by, for example, some nefarious kidnapper) much less why she's dressed that way as to herself, the character, her own personality. What we have is this image put on the cover of a book in order to sell it. That is no different from this:

So when Ms. Charter apologizes for doing the wrong thing vis-a-vis sexism in gaming throughout her career, I think it's important to note -- hey, she's still doing it. I don't mean to say her apology is worthless because of that. The situation is much trickier. The situation is that she chose and had to choose one interest (career advancement) over another interest (standing up to sexism) because they are in her experience mutually exclusive.

**Compel**

On the other hand, maybe it just simply is irony...

**Melissia**

Lolipop Chainsaw is actually a bit of a complex issue and I am not entirely certain how I feel about it.

On one hand you have a strong and competent female lead and a weak male damsel to be rescued, and on the other hand, it's obvious that the game focuses less on her strength and competence and more on her sexuality. :/

**Manchu**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
The problematic part is your use of the word "skanky."

I agree that the word is problematic (see above). I don't think it cannot be used because it is problematic. I have tried to explain how I was using the problematic nature of the word to describe the observer rather than the observed -- i.e, it is reasonable to assume the skirt was chosen to sexualize the character's portrayal. Put another way, the skirt was chosen to indicate to an audience whose preferences and prejudices are already known that this character is not only sexy but more particularly skanky. For example:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
(though you're still invoking the moral framework to an extent)

The issue is that I'm not invoking the moral framework -- I'm pointing out that it is being invoked by the portrayal. All the same, your point that I should be more careful about making these things clear at the outset is well taken. I'd certainly rather discuss what I actually am trying to say than something else.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
On the topic of the book itself. I feel obliged to point out it was published in November last year. Her statements are from, what - yesterday? So yeah. It even fits in her description of "I consciously benefited from it at times even when it made me feel bad."

But ... here's the one published this month:

Melissia wrote:
Lolipop Chainsaw is actually a bit of a complex issue and I am not entirely certain how I feel about it.

We're not talking about the game or even the character -- just the cover.

Compel wrote:
On the other hand, maybe it just simply is irony...

Again, there is no indication of irony in the thing itself. Any irony would have to come from somewhere else.

**Cheesecat**

Melissia wrote:
Lolipop Chainsaw is actually a bit of a complex issue and I am not entirely certain how I feel about it.

On one hand you have a strong and competent female lead and a weak male damsel to be rescued, and on the other hand, it's obvious that the game focuses less on her strength and competence and more on her sexuality. :/

It also looks like it's a reference to sleazy grind-house movies, exploitation films and B-movies.

**Manchu**

Cheesecat wrote:
It also looks like it's a reference to sleazy grind-house movies, exploitation films and B-movies.

Which is also what Ms. Charter's books seem to be.

**Cheesecat**

Manchu wrote:
Compel wrote:
On the other hand, maybe it just simply is irony...
Again, there is no indication of irony in the thing itself. Any irony would have to come from somewhere else.

I would have thought the irony is it's a book discussing sexism in video games and they use an image of an objectified woman as the cover.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Never mind, it looks like the book is a fictional story.

**Manchu**

Neither the image on the cover nor the blurb on the back cover indicates the book is exploring sexism in the video game industry.

We have a sexualized woman on the front, the enticement of a naked female corpse on the back along with promise of a "seedy underbelly" of the video game industry.

Looks to me like sexism rather than commentary on sexism.

**Cheesecat**

Manchu wrote:
Neither the image on the cover nor the blurb on the back cover indicates the book is exploring sexism in the video game industry.

We have a sexualized woman on the front, the enticement of a naked female corpse on the back along with promise of a "seedy underbelly" of the video game industry.

Looks to me like sexism rather than commentary on sexism.

Yeah, I just realized it's a fictional story not a book discussing the issues of sexism in the video-game industry.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

Well, for just $7 we could find out!! Its review scores are very high.

I don't know if you have better information on the second one, but it appears to have been listed as upcoming at least as far back as December last year, and is slated for release around May. It seems like it has been in the works for some time.

I wonder if these events will have any impact on her releasing that story?

**Manchu**

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
and is slated for release around May.

Yep, May, my mistake.

As to reading the book, the reviews, the story itself -- keep in mind this is not the question. The question is the sexualized portrayal divorced from the story, the reviews, the authorial intent, etc., what I think is tantamount the objectification of the character explicitly to sell the book.

As to the timing issue between this portrayal that she is responsible for and her comments about her participation in sexist behavior, keep in mind that she's using the cover image as her facebook avatar to criticize the picture of the women at the party.

**HiveFleetPlastic**

I'm not sure that it's explicitly to sell the book. From the reviews it sounds like it might be perfectly in line with the sort of book that it is. It just sounds weird in the context of her recent statement.

Definitely sounds like a "sex, lies and intrigue" sort of affair.

**Slarg232**

Lolipop chainsaw is a game about a cheerleader fighting off emo/punk rock zombies.

Seriously, how serious SHOULD it take it's lead character? Nevermind how the female villain is fully clothed (Filthy stinking hippy....), her older sister is pretty covered, and her younger sister is rather modest (But not exactly covered).

**Sigvatr**

Slarg232 wrote:
Lolipop chainsaw is a game about a cheerleader fighting off emo/punk rock zombies.

Seriously, how serious SHOULD it take it's lead character? Nevermind how the female villain is fully clothed (Filthy stinking hippy....), her older sister is pretty covered, and her younger sister is rather modest (But not exactly covered).

...and nevermind that she always has her boyfriend's talking head on her belt!

**Dreadclaw69**

Another perspective is, are covers like these;

Exploiting the fictional female character, or are they exploiting the actual male customer who buys the product in no small part because of the image?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also just wanted to post this - http://m.gamespot.com/news/women-are-the-new-core-says-microsoft-narrative-designer-6406037

'Women are the new core,' says Microsoft narrative designer

A narrative writer for Microsoft Studios has said that "women are the new core" and that creating more diverse stories, including more female characters and ethnicities, will make for better games.

Speaking as part of a presentation at GDC 2013 (written up by GamesIndustry and Polygon), Tom Abernathy--who has worked on Halo: Reach, The Saboteur, and Destroy All Humans--said the games industry hasn't kept up with today's social culture and that the market for video games is changing at a pace that developers and publishers aren't keeping up with.

"Our audience is leaving us behind," Abernathy said. "The world is changing, it has already changed, and we have not been doing a very good job of keeping up with it."

Abernathy pointed to various studies that show the diverse makeup of modern gamers, including research by the Entertainment Software Association and casual game developer PopCap which states that adult women now make up 30 per cent of US gamers.

"Women are not a small special market on the fringe of the core," Abernathy said. "Women are the new core."

Abernathy also said that more diverse games would be good for the business of the games industry, because more diversity would bring in a wider audience and therefore generate more money. "But you need to persuade people that it's OK, and won't hurt sales but might help them," he said.

"Nobody in the room admits to being against making characters female or nonwhite," he added. "But they're scared because they don't know how to defend that choice to their bosses."

"Our industry, our art, and our business stand to gain in every sense simply by holding a mirror up to our audience and reflecting their diversity in what we produce," Abernathy said.

So it sounds as though the hasn't been a cultural shift, judging by the statements made by several people involved in the games industry, but that companies are now recognising a new viable market. Sounds a little familiar.......

Oh yeah,

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
As I've already said I believe that when the market change then this too will change. Not that there is some culture shift in attitudes towards women, but that the forecasts show that there will be a suitable return on their investment to justify the risk. That is the nature of almost every business. To make money regardless of morals etc. If they sideline characters it is because of financial reasons, not some cultural baggage unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary.

**Melissia**

Or, as an article I posted a couple days ago stated, they really just don't understand their market as well as they think they do. It's already changed, but the companies themselves haven't.

**Sigvatr**

I do approve of the giant image

**Kilkrazy**

Exploitation of a character/person/resource implies they have little or no choice in the matter.

The Lexy Cooper cover exploits the character image, but not the readers, who have an easy choice to buy it or not.

Unless you support the idea that people especially men are unable to rationally control their sexual impulses.

I don't know but women readers may well see Lexy Cooper as a strong, confident, attractive character partly based on her dress.

People read meanings into other people's actions and often misunderstand them due to various errors and biases. It is called "attribution theory". Thus, a man and a woman can look at the same person/character and make completely different inferences about them.

**Dreadclaw69**

Melissia wrote:
Or, as an article I posted a couple days ago stated, they really just don't understand their market as well as they think they do. It's already changed, but the companies themselves haven't.

And I said that change would come, not when there was a social change, but a financial incentive. I've been pretty clear and consistent on that point, which you poured scorn on. What you said was;

Melissia wrote:
I stated that long-running societal biases have colored their decision making

Melissia wrote:
I provided evidence that they attempt to shut down games with female leads or force the developers to change the lead to male, and made assertions to that effect. That does not necessarily indicate active misogyny. It DOES indicate a flawed set of cultural baggage that needs to be gotten rid of.

Now given that two well known female figures in the industry have come out and publicly decried the sexism in the industry, with some very recent examples, does that show that the cultural baggage of which you speak has been resolved (your argument)? Or does it mean that they are responding to market changes (my argument)?
I'll give you a clue,

Abernathy pointed to various studies that show the diverse makeup of modern gamers, including research by the Entertainment Software Association and casual game developer PopCap which states that adult women now make up 30 per cent of US gamers.

The market has changed, the industry is responding, but the "societal biases" and "cultural baggage" that you speak of are still present.

Maybe you could answer this as well as you seem to have avoided it - Another perspective is, are covers like these; (see above) exploiting the fictional female character, or are they exploiting the actual male customer who buys the product in no small part because of the image?

**Melissia**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And I said that change would come, not when there was a social change, but a financial incentive.

There has always been a financial incentive.

You're assuming that they have perfect information and are perfectly capable of making completely logical decisions. Which they aren't. Seriously, what the HELL about the video games industry makes you think that they are this competent?

The industry will continue to drag its feet and, as a result, miss out on profits that it could have had otherwise.

Just like countless industries before them after big businesses took over.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Now given that two well known female figures in the industry have come out and publicly decried the sexism in the industry, with some very recent examples, does that show that the cultural baggage of which you speak has been resolved (your argument)?

Stop attempting to create a strawman, that's not my argument and never has been. People speaking out against sexism in the industry is not the same as the industry no longer being sexist.

**Dreadclaw69**

That was your argument, your own words which I quoted to you. As I said before, I've been pretty clear in my argument about when the industry will change, and someone from one of the biggest companies in the industry came out and echoed my point.

If you're trying to distort what you've said in light of new material then I think any chance of a reasonable discussion is greatly diminished.

**Melissia**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
That was your argument, your own words

Try actually reading the posts that you're quoting instead of blindly quoting them and then making gak up.

I'm not distorting anything about what I said. I never, not even once, said that just speaking out against the problem would indicate that the problem is somehow magically resolved, and I have no clue where the feth you got that idea from.

If anyone here is doing any sort of distortion, it's you.

**Kilkrazy**

...
...

Maybe you could answer this as well as you seem to have avoided it - Another perspective is, are covers like these; (see above) exploiting the fictional female character, or are they exploiting the actual male customer who buys the product in no small part because of the image?

I refer you to my previous answer.

TL

R if heterosexual men are unthinking beasts, they are cruelly exploited by such covers. However, they aren't.

**Melissia**

If you want to have a discussion on how it is exploitative, you should talk to Manchu. I simply stated that I thought it was inappropriate and a little tasteless.

**Dreadclaw69**

Melissa, you keep ducking the question about the covers, any chance you could share your thoughts on those?

Melissia wrote:
Try actually reading the posts that you're quoting instead of blindly quoting them and then making gak up.

I'm not distorting anything about what I said. I never, not even once, said that just speaking out against the problem would indicate that the problem is somehow magically resolved, and I have no clue where the feth you got that idea from.

If anyone here is doing any sort of distortion, it's you.

I quoted your exact words, and somehow I'm distorting them? That's a bizarre argument to make.
What about these quotes? Have I somehow distorted them?

Melissia wrote:I provided evidence that they attempt to shut down games with female leads or force the developers to change the lead to male, and made assertions to that effect. That does not necessarily indicate active misogyny. It DOES indicate a flawed set of cultural baggage that needs to be gotten rid of.

You are only claiming such because you are desperately grasping at straws to try to discredit what I have said-- since you do not exactly have much of a point otherwise.

Melissia wrote:I never disagreed that they're motivated by money, but that's not really relevant. I'm saying that cultural values color their interpretation of the data, leading them to jump to inaccurate conclusions-- such as shutting down or forcibly changing (against the will of the writers, a problem that in comic books is called an "editorial mandate") because of a misplaced belief that female leads are unprofitable specifically because they're female.

That's what cultural values DO, they color our interpretations of the data we receive. Because of our culture, we know that a red light means stop, while a green light means go. Because of our culture, we know that a hand held up palm facing you is a sign for "stop", while in another culture, it might actually mean something rather profane and/or sexual. Our upbringing and values colors our interpretation of the data, and this is not really bad, it's necessary for functioning as a human being, but that doesn't mean that nothing should ever change.

Melissia wrote:I stated that long-running societal biases have colored their decision making. Tell me this, when a white businessman in the 50s turns aside black people, does that mean he hates black people? No. He was making a decision to turn them aside because he believed, based off of common cultural perceptions, that they would not be good for business-- that they wouldn't have the money, that they would attract undesirables such as criminals and drug-users, and that they would scare away more desirable customers (who just so happened to be white). Or if they did serve non-whites, the businesses offered inferior services to the black people instead of equal services-- again, perceiving them as less valuable customers, even when they both paid the same prices for the same products.

Many, if not most, did not necessarily think "I hate black people so I'm not serving them". They wanted higher profits so they did things which they perceived would result in higher profits. But that does not make their decisions the correct ones, either financially or morally.

Your position has been that cultural baggage is the reason for lack of investment, you've been pretty consistent in that.

Now, two very prominent female members of the games industry (including the former Xbox Community Manager) have come out with details of the type of sexism still prevalent in the industry - proving that there has been no change in culture in the industry (unless of course you think that your personal anecdotes trump theirs). A writer for Microsoft Studios comes out and says that the are aware that the market has changed to the point were it is viable and they will start breaking into it i.e. that there has been a change because of the market
To reiterate what I said back on Page 28, and which you kept disagreeing with
"As I've already said I believe that when the market change then this too will change. Not that there is some culture shift in attitudes towards women, but that the forecasts show that there will be a suitable return on their investment to justify the risk. That is the nature of almost every business. To make money regardless of morals etc. If they sideline characters it is because of financial reasons, not some cultural baggage unless you have concrete evidence to the contrary."
It seems the evidence backs up my position more strongly than it does yours.

**Melissia**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Melissa, you keep ducking the question about the covers

No, I'm not.

You're conflating Manchu's argument with mine. If you have beef with Manchu's argument, bug Manchu.

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
I quoted your exact words, and somehow I'm distorting them? That's a bizarre argument to make.

You quoted my words and then proceeded to ignore them and make up an argument entirely unrelated to the words that were quoted. That is pretty much the definition of a strawman argument, and a perfect example of distortion.