Tropes vs Women: Ms Male Character and the Smurfette Principle

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.

**LordofHats**

Compel wrote:
I believe the Jedi Exile from Knights of the Old Republic 2 was declared as canon Female.

She was. But I'll note that if you dig back far enough, she was often defacto male for any discussion that wasn't a ship war, but there was no where near the blow up on that declaration because frankly no one really cared about the Exile anyway

Not when there's a flame war waiting about Revan loving Bastilla while not being a lesbian

**Manchu**

LordofHats wrote:
frankly no one really cared about the Exile anyway

True and probably not irrelevant to LA (or LFL or whoever) being able to canonically define her as female.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I apologise for having a half-reply to your post above

No need to apologize, it's my fault because of my posting style. I post first, edit second. A fault, I know, but that's life.

**LordofHats**

Drew's probably the only guy who could get away with declaring the MC's from KotOR as either sex definitively. Even with the Revan blow up, the blow up was directed at Drew not Bioware and was comparatively minor compared to other incidents. though Bioware I think is well aware of the hazzards of ship to ship combat (if they're not after DA2 then they're more oblivious than I think they are).

**Ahtman**

In SW:ToR Revan isn't a PC, and is male, and in the books as well that came up around that time.

**LordofHats**

Drew Karpyshyn is the 'master and commander' of the KotOR time line is thus far the guy really calling the shots on the continuity. Or was anyway. The future of the EU is kind of murkey with Disney taking over.

He first defined Revan as canonically male and the Exile as canonically female (official name 'Meetra Surik,') in his novel Revan which was a tie in to SWToR where I think he's the lead writer as well. He's also the author of the Mass Effect novels I believe, though he's taken pains last I checked to avoid directly having anything to do with Shepard.

Totally off topic XD Shutting up now

**Alexzandvar**

I love the absolute adoration Anita gets for her stuff when basically shes only a "Video Game Feminist" because she couldn't make it in mainstream women's rights because he claims are so outlandish and absurd that its impossible to follow her logic on some things.

Half naked male? Male power fantasy. Half named female? Sexist. She is the queen of double standards. Not to mention the queen of scammers for taking her over goal kickstarter money to take video game footage from OTHER PEOPLES VIDEOS WITHOUT THERE PERMISSION to use in her reviews.

And please, look at my posting history, Im a Liberal/Federalist, I believe in equal rights, read: no special treatment for anyone be it men OR women.

If she wants to actually change something she needs to start making any kind of sense in her arguments rather than relying on legions of internet white knights to save her (Ironically).

2 good videos to watch explaning her BS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI

**Manchu**

Her vids make sense to me.

**nomotog**

You know typing male objectification into Google turns up results that look nothing like the characters you would see in a video game. It might illustrate the difference between male power fantasy and male objectification. I wouldn't want to link any of it because some is quite disturbing.

**Manchu**

Did turn up an on-point if preachy webcomic:

Spoiler:

**Alexzandvar**

Manchu wrote:
Her vids make sense to me.

The point is that they do on a video contained basis, but when put togeather in a string to form an arguement about sexism they fall about.

See: The idea of a strong women being a "Man with boobs" and a weak women being "Outright sexist" so, yeah its hard to tell what she wants when her argument contradicts itself.

It comes back around to the same reason affirmative action gets people in a rustle, people who were oppressed in the past are all about equality till they start wanting to be treated BETTER than everyone else. To say nothing of the fact that she has stolen other peoples footage for her videos would should at least outrage if you backed her kickstarter.

**Manchu**

Alexzandvar wrote:
The idea of a strong women being a "Man with boobs" and a weak women being "Outright sexist" so, yeah its hard to tell what she wants when her argument contradicts itself.

I don't really follow your argument here.

**Alexzandvar**

nomotog wrote:
You know typing male objectification into Google turns up results that look nothing like the characters you would see in a video game. It might illustrate the difference between male power fantasy and male objectification. I wouldn't want to link any of it because some is quite disturbing.

Im not saying males are objectified, simply that the idea that there shouldn't be a doublestandard when it comes to presentation of arguements.

**Bromsy**

Manchu wrote:
Alexzandvar wrote:
The idea of a strong women being a "Man with boobs" and a weak women being "Outright sexist" so, yeah its hard to tell what she wants when her argument contradicts itself.
I don't really follow your argument here.

He's talking about how in her earlier videos she bemoaned the lack of strong female characters and how women in games have no agency, and then in her newest video pointed out strong women with agency and simply wrote them off as being 'a Ms Male' or not really women. So basically she sets a ridiculous standard and moves goalposts.

**Manchu**

Those arguments are not actually contradictory.

**nomotog**

Alexzandvar wrote:
Manchu wrote:
Her vids make sense to me.

The point is that they do on a video contained basis, but when put togeather in a string to form an arguement about sexism they fall about.

See: The idea of a strong women being a "Man with boobs" and a weak women being "Outright sexist" so, yeah its hard to tell what she wants when her argument contradicts itself.

It comes back around to the same reason affirmative action gets people in a rustle, people who were oppressed in the past are all about equality till they start wanting to be treated BETTER than everyone else. To say nothing of the fact that she has stolen other peoples footage for her videos would should at least outrage if you backed her kickstarter.

The idea that a strong woman is a man is one of the gangly bits that bothers me. It's one of the reason I actually don't the idea of the arch typical strong woman. It can be just as limiting as the damsel in distress and has a misogynistic under current. The idea behind it is that aspects of femininity are bad and that you can't be a strong unless your reject your femininity.

**Chongara**

nomotog wrote:

The idea that a strong woman is a man is one of the gangly bits that bothers me. It's one of the reason I actually don't the idea of the arch typical strong woman. It can be just as limiting as the damsel in distress and has a misogynistic under current. The idea behind it is that aspects of femininity are bad and that you can't be a strong unless your reject your femininity.

What is the difference or differences between woman that is really "A man", and a real woman? Can you please underline some of thinking that informs the relevance of these differences, as well as the justification for that thinking.

Thanks.

**Manchu**

Chongara wrote:
What is the difference or differences between woman that is really "A man", and a real woman?

Writing lists of normative gender role characteristics certainly won't help (this is what Lynata has been trying to pressure me into doing). Fortunately, EA allows us to avoid that pratfall with the ME series and DA2 by creating default male characters that can be reskinned/revoiced as female. Granted such examples are not exactly the same as pointing at any given character and saying "that's really a man" but they do get to the misogynistic undertone that nomotog was talking about, I think.

**Chongara**

Manchu wrote:
Chongara wrote:
What is the difference or differences between woman that is really "A man", and a real woman?
Writing lists of normative gender role characteristics certainly won't help (this is what Lynata has been trying to pressure me into doing). Fortunately, EA allows us to avoid that pratfall with the ME series and DA2 by creating default male characters that can be reskinned/revoiced as female. Granted such examples are not exactly the same as pointing at any given character and saying "that's really a man" but they do get to the misogynistic undertone that nomotog was talking about, I think.

To clarify without snark:

Defining things in terms of "Real Woman" or not is at best problematic. The the instant you make a statement like that you're already saying that list of traits exists where, those matching exist in one little bubble for real women and another for not actually women. it's a natural implication of framing things in those terms and I don't see any way that can turn out really productive.

Now, it's certainly true that developers could do more to make sure that the impacts of sex & gender might have on a particular character (especially women), are considered when writing for a character. However, that's a very different way of framing things than complaining about "discarding femininity".

**nomotog**

Chongara wrote:
nomotog wrote:

The idea that a strong woman is a man is one of the gangly bits that bothers me. It's one of the reason I actually don't the idea of the arch typical strong woman. It can be just as limiting as the damsel in distress and has a misogynistic under current. The idea behind it is that aspects of femininity are bad and that you can't be a strong unless your reject your femininity.

What is the difference or differences between woman that is really "A man", and a real woman? Can you please underline some of thinking that informs the relevance of these differences, as well as the justification for that thinking.

Thanks.

Well I guess the difference is that the man woman is bleached of femininity well a woman still has femininity. I think it's relevant because female characters without femininity often get valued higher them female characters with femininity as if to say that femininity itself has little to no value. Possibility a negative value. The old adage on how to make good female characters is to make male characters and change the name. There is no inverse to writing good male characters.

**Manchu**

Chongara wrote:
Defining things in terms of "Real Woman" or not is at best problematic.

I quite agree, which is why I think the BioWare examples are so fortunate. We don't need to evoke or even imply the aforementioned lists, which unavoidably derails discussion, regarding the ME games or DA2. The games themselves define gender as a binary choice consisting in visual/audial (and very weakly, narrative) difference; but more important the games define the default choice as male.

Another somewhat on-point POV:

We seem to put a premium on female characters who partake in action and/or violence over those who do not. Bella Swan is a lousy role model because she relentlessly pursues a romance while Katniss Everdeen is a positive female role model because she kills people with a bow, right?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/05/10/brave-iron-man-3-and-the-faux-feminism-of-armed-women/

**LordofHats**

Bella Swan is a lousy role model because she relentlessly pursues a romance

Bella Swan is a lousy roll model because she has 0 positive traits, is obsessed with a extremely unhealthy relationship with very pathetic man who is equally obsessed in said unhealthy relationship while also having 0 positive traits unless we take blind bordering on suicidal devotion as positive which is dubious.

Hunger Games Katniss could be considered better because she's actually her own person and does things because she wants to do them. Granted given the plots of Catching Fire and Mockingjay, Katniss quickly devolves to a literal object of fascination and then to a broken bird to break all broken birds. So, not much better by the end of her tale. She basically spends two thirds of Mockingjay moping about and the last third going crazy.

Of course, both characters were also written by women

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2013/05/10/brave-iron-man-3-and-the-faux-feminism-of-armed-women/

He's referencing videos from Sarkesiaan on other subjects where she's noticably more derranged in her thoughts. Given though that the thread is about Tropes vs Women series, which while we all know its not my favorite, maybe we should actually stick to that subject and save pointing out the muddled and confused opinions of Anita Sarkesiaan over the years for a thread purely about Anita Sarkesiaan (which is not this thread).

**Manchu**

Your analysis of Bella Swan owes more to Twilight-hate than the actual text, I think. I'm not saying Bella is underrated, by the way, just that I agree that Katniss is overrated, and largely because she kills people.

**nomotog**

Maybe we should use video game examples because it's the video game forum and I don't really know much about thew hunger games or twilight.

**Manchu**

How about the Iron Man movies?

From the same article:

... any number of articles have exclaimed that somehow Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a stronger, more impressive character this go-around purely because she spends about 90 seconds wearing Tony’s Iron Man suit during the first act of the picture. Oh, and she also engages in about two seconds of action later in the film. But other than those two brief moments, she is a shell of her former self, with Paltrow given far less to do and a far less rich character to play.

Never mind that she spends the first act being leered at by the villain mostly to make Tony Stark oh-so-jealous, never mind that she spends literally the entire second half of the film as a damsel-in-distress. Never mind that she spends the entire film having power being handed to her and then taken away from her by other men. She gets to wear an Iron Man suit for a single brief action beat so obviously it’s a more empowering role this time, right? Just why is Merida a better role model for young girls because she shoots arrows at trees? Why is Pepper Potts in Iron Man 3 considered superior to the Pepper Potts of Iron Man 2 (where she was promoted to basically being Tony Stark’s boss and practiced substantial tough love through the film) just because she is given a moment in a metallic super suit?

**LordofHats**

Manchu wrote:
Your analysis of Bella Swan owes more to Twilight-hate than the actual text

The text is why there is Twilight hate (well mostly the hate is from something so mediocre becoming so insanely popular which isn't a first). Hell try and work out how the plot for most of the series actually makes any sense. Twilight itself was passable on terms of plot but from New Moon onwards there's an increasing amount of character stupidity being the only thing keeping the show running. I'll save us all time by pointing out that across the internet you will find 'How to' guides for writing romance plots that use Twilight as an example of everything a writer should never do. And it actually is a wonderful example of such. EDIT: And yeah. I've read the entire series. Writers read.

And I'm off topic again (right after suggesting we stay on topic). Yey me.

**nomotog**

Manchu wrote:
How about the Iron Man movies?

From the same article:
... any number of articles have exclaimed that somehow Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) is a stronger, more impressive character this go-around purely because she spends about 90 seconds wearing Tony’s Iron Man suit during the first act of the picture. Oh, and she also engages in about two seconds of action later in the film. But other than those two brief moments, she is a shell of her former self, with Paltrow given far less to do and a far less rich character to play.

Never mind that she spends the first act being leered at by the villain mostly to make Tony Stark oh-so-jealous, never mind that she spends literally the entire second half of the film as a damsel-in-distress. Never mind that she spends the entire film having power being handed to her and then taken away from her by other men. She gets to wear an Iron Man suit for a single brief action beat so obviously it’s a more empowering role this time, right? Just why is Merida a better role model for young girls because she shoots arrows at trees? Why is Pepper Potts in Iron Man 3 considered superior to the Pepper Potts of Iron Man 2 (where she was promoted to basically being Tony Stark’s boss and practiced substantial tough love through the film) just because she is given a moment in a metallic super suit?

I can't think of what to say as comment. It dose relate to what I said a little ways up where female characters with masculine traits (like being violent) get valued over female characters without those traits.

**Manchu**

Well, without even saying being violent is masculine, it's still an interesting point in the context of video games. Are violent female characters generally thought to be "stronger" (in what sense?) than non-violent ones? To rephrase it, does being violent somehow make a female character less problematic? I think the obvious answer is no but a lot talk about "positive" female characters centers around their combat badassery. Samus is a good example here. Now, perhaps that's because so many video games are primarily violent such that being strong in a video game is the equivalent of being violent? Maybe, but (with reference to the webcomic I posted earlier) if video game violence is presumptively based in male fantasy, then aren't female characters who find their strength in violence simply extensions of that same male fantasy (e.g., Lollipop Chainsaw)?

**nomotog**

Manchu wrote:
Well, without even saying being violent is masculine, it's still an interesting point in the context of video games. Are violent female characters generally thought to be "stronger" (in what sense?) than non-violent ones? To rephrase it, does being violent somehow make a female character less problematic? I think the obvious answer is no but a lot talk about "positive" female characters centers around their combat badassery. Samus is a good example here. Now, perhaps that's because so many video games are primarily violent such that being strong in a video game is the equivalent of being violent? Maybe, but (with reference to the webcomic I posted earlier) if video game violence is presumptively based in male fantasy, then aren't female characters who find their strength in violence simply extensions of that same male fantasy (e.g., Lollipop Chainsaw)?

I think it's true to say that in most video games strength is expressed by way of physical violence. The strong character is the one who is best able to beat you up. I can think of a few exceptions, like in thief where Garrett's strength comes form stealth and cunning rather then the ability to hit people really hard. ME is half in and half out. It's mentioned that the reason shepherd is strong is because they can inspire and lead people, but at the same time Shepard also has a talent for violence and some times it feels like that is the more important trait. In most games the MC expressions their power by killing and beating people. You almost never see a game where a characters power comes from someplace other then their weapon.

**Manchu**

And so if you assume video game violence is masculine, you could rephrase that as a female character's power comes from her masculinity.

**nomotog**

Manchu wrote:
And so if you assume video game violence is masculine, you could rephrase that as a female character's power comes from her masculinity.

In most games that would be correct. I can think of one example where that wasn't the case. It was in smash brothers. Fox and Zelda are about to get in a fight, but princess peach stops it with a impromptu tea party. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POCJawYsNg0 That was rather cool. It was expression of power for peach to stop the fight like that and she did it with tea.