| Deviant Login | Shop | Join deviantART for FREE  |
Take the Tour  |
| Cartoons & Comics / Digital Media / Comics / Strips | ©2012-2013 ~poly-m |
The Journal Portal
Browse Journals |
Polls |
deviantART [dee·vee·un'nt·ART]
Keep in Touch!
|
Deviousness `anmari has been spreading her infectious positivity throughout our community for over 6 years. Throughout this time Ana has been at the core of all things devious, passionately developing an eclectic gallery, helping organise devmeets, participating in chat events and also recently completed dedicating her time as a Community Volunteer. We are absolutely delighted to bestow the Deviousness Award for May 2013 to `anmari, congratulations! Read More
|
Sta.sh
So by her logic, the perfectly feminist game must have no male or female characters. Hmmm... well the only game on my mind like that is Tetri...
...oh...
Like, a lady character doesn't have to be a hard-ass militant woman with a cropped haircut, a harsh attitude, and strictly-policed emotions to be 'strong,' but that's the popular trope that people will often default to.
They think that the best way to make a female character 'strong' is by assigning her distinctly masculine traits. But, there is a much better way to do this.
If you just give a normal female character or a female protagonist the chance to go through actual character development-- trials and obstacles to overcome so that she might grow as a person (without relying on her sexuality as a weapon/to draw appeal, but instead using her brain or her skills and abilities)-- if you just give a normal female character some chance to develop, then it'd show her strengths in that way.
This way, portrays her as a human being who can grow and change and become stronger, instead of portraying her as a trophy, fan service, love interest, damsel in distress, etc..
Portal and Portal 2 are excellent examples feminist games, and they're pretty cheap if you bought them over in Steam. I would definitely recommend playing them, if you have some free time.
It has reached a point where there isn't any grounding for Anita. It seems almost that instead of setting up a set of principles for herself, she will use any feminist principle that is convenient for her at that particular time, if it means to show what she is going up against as sexist and offensive. One moment she will complain that a female character is too butch. The other she will complain that the female is too sexualized. And yes, while the Portal games (hell, I would even go so far as to say the whole Valve library, especially the Half Life 2 games) are excellent examples, I have seen feminists like Anita flip their fudge over things like how Chell now wears her jumpsuit top around her waist. With polarizing opinions of course. So where does one draw the line.
All in all, my problem is not that she is a feminist or wants to have women portrayed tastefully in games. There is a need for that (hell, I would argue that there is even a need to portray men more tastefully as well). My problem is that she set out with a certain objective and set herself as the face of feminism in gaming... and has failed spectacularly in both fronts.
But, to me, the things she was saying make a whole lotta sense. What I took away from it was that it's not about characters being too 'butch' or too sexualized, you can't think in black and white like that. It's the terms under which they're "butched" or sexualized that you have to consider. And that's kinda the whole point in thinking in a more feminist way. "Is this character sexualized because she's asserting her independence? Or is she sexualized purely for fan-service? Is this character being 'butched' up because we're trying to assert that being strong automatically means being more masculine? Or is this simply the character's personality? Is this character being written off as a love interest with pretty much no character development otherwise? Or is she a really good character, and love just happens to be another part of her life, just like any other well-rounded person?"
But, see, I don't understand how you've decided she's failed? Like, I understand you have a very negative opinion of her, but you're just not really providing enough supporting facts to make your opinion seem valid? I feel like her videos provide a lot of information, they're very clearly laid out, each videos objective is clearly explained and with a lot of examples and sources, etc.. But, if you were willing to explain a bit more on how you feel she's failed, I'd be willing to listen to it.
I am not going to do that. You may call me a hack, retard, moron, chauvinistic, misogynist or whatever the hell you want to make yourself feel better, but I am not going to drag myself into an eternal comment war.
I will end with this: I don't think Anita is a bad person, nor do I think her message is lacking in credance. I just think she needs to do a better job and be more intelligent about it. In the end, her show IS an opinion piece, and therefore anyone should be allowed to disagree with it.