An article from 2014 that is no less relevant today. Not surprisingly, all the arguments listed have their place on the Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo.
Here’s one of the summarizing paragraphs of the list which I find most important:
If people only “lose their minds” when the comics industry objectifies women or ignores its female audience, that’s because it’s not happening the other way around. Male readers are not being ignored, and female readers are not being pandered to at the cost of men’s dignity.
An article from 2014 that is no less relevant today. Not surprisingly, all the arguments listed have their place on the Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo.
Here’s one of the summarizing paragraphs of the list which I find most important:
If people only “lose their minds” when the comics industry objectifies women or ignores its female audience, that’s because it’s not happening the other way around. Male readers are not being ignored, and female readers are not being pandered to at the cost of men’s dignity.
An article from 2014 that is no less relevant today. Not surprisingly, all the arguments listed have their place on the Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo.
Here’s one of the summarizing paragraphs of the list which I find most important:
If people only “lose their minds” when the comics industry objectifies women or ignores its female audience, that’s because it’s not happening the other way around. Male readers are not being ignored, and female readers are not being pandered to at the cost of men’s dignity.
Oh hey! Earth Defense Force, that gleefully bonkers game about shooting lots of giant bugs and other kaiju, has a sequel that just came out on Steam? Let’s check out the store page!
Three classes where any gender is possible, and one that makes sure you know it’s a woman. Well, that just raises more questions. Let’s see what the official site has to say.
Wing Divers:
An all-female special forces unit equipped with jetpacks. This unit was formed as a secret weapon for annihilating giant creatures. They use super weapons born from extraterrestrial technology.
*This soldier class is swift and deadly. However, their low armor strength makes them particularly susceptible to attacks.
Wing Divers appear to be a new version of the Jet Armor, a character class that appeared in the previous game. What did that look like?
Ordinarily I’d say, “More Advanced = Skimpier” and leave it at that. But this has another layer to it. You see, in EDF 2 there was the Pale Wing character class.
We went from the unisex freedom of “Insect Armageddon” to the flying-cheerleader throwback of “The Shadow of New Despair.” But that’s okay. It’s a high-camp comedy, so anything goes. Right? Right???
Rocket pigtails!
So… how does this game describe itself on Steam?
I’m guessing the depths of despair comes when you realise what the female character options are… and frankly that leads me to doubt their ability to bring me back from that.
Personally I think it says a lot that marketing image focuses almost exclusively on the title and showcasing how the female costumes are about boobs and the male costumes about being badass. They don’t even take the time to give you some hint about what you’ll be fighting.
Oh hey! Earth Defense Force, that gleefully bonkers game about shooting lots of giant bugs and other kaiju, has a sequel that just came out on Steam? Let’s check out the store page!
Three classes where any gender is possible, and one that makes sure you know it’s a woman. Well, that just raises more questions. Let’s see what the official site has to say.
Wing Divers:
An all-female special forces unit equipped with jetpacks. This unit was formed as a secret weapon for annihilating giant creatures. They use super weapons born from extraterrestrial technology.
*This soldier class is swift and deadly. However, their low armor strength makes them particularly susceptible to attacks.
Wing Divers appear to be a new version of the Jet Armor, a character class that appeared in the previous game. What did that look like?
Ordinarily I’d say, “More Advanced = Skimpier” and leave it at that. But this has another layer to it. You see, in EDF 2 there was the Pale Wing character class.
We went from the unisex freedom of “Insect Armageddon” to the flying-cheerleader throwback of “The Shadow of New Despair.” But that’s okay. It’s a high-camp comedy, so anything goes. Right? Right???
Rocket pigtails!
So… how does this game describe itself on Steam?
I’m guessing the depths of despair comes when you realise what the female character options are… and frankly that leads me to doubt their ability to bring me back from that.
Personally I think it says a lot that marketing image focuses almost exclusively on the title and showcasing how the female costumes are about boobs and the male costumes about being badass. They don’t even take the time to give you some hint about what you’ll be fighting.
“One might think this is because women didn’t serve combat roles – which isn’t true – but according to former DICE coder Amandine Coget, it’s because the project leads thought boys wouldn’t find it believable.
…Coget adds that DICE made several decisions for Battlefield 1
which have nothing to do with historical realism – including how tanks
function or the lethality rates of early parachutes – but female
soldiers still wouldn’t appear in multiplayer.”
Heavy sighing. (h/t @cypheroftyr via Twitter.)
What’s a worse argument to not have women in your combat-heavy game than “they’re too hard to animate”? “Historically, female warriors are unrealistic”, of course! And how to add to the injury? Insult your intended demographic by saying THEY are the one who won’t believe it! It’s not like games have potential to educate and widen the player’s horizons, right?
Considering the developer is so totally concerned with “realism” (as understood by pubescent boys), @pointandclickbait has a great suggestion to what historically accurate thing should be included instead of soldier women:
“One might think this is because women didn’t serve combat roles – which isn’t true – but according to former DICE coder Amandine Coget, it’s because the project leads thought boys wouldn’t find it believable.
…Coget adds that DICE made several decisions for Battlefield 1
which have nothing to do with historical realism – including how tanks
function or the lethality rates of early parachutes – but female
soldiers still wouldn’t appear in multiplayer.”
Heavy sighing. (h/t @cypheroftyr via Twitter.)
What’s a worse argument to not have women in your combat-heavy game than “they’re too hard to animate”? “Historically, female warriors are unrealistic”, of course! And how to add to the injury? Insult your intended demographic by saying THEY are the one who won’t believe it! It’s not like games have potential to educate and widen the player’s horizons, right?
Considering the developer is so totally concerned with “realism” (as understood by pubescent boys), @pointandclickbaithas a great suggestion to what historically accurate thing should be included instead of soldier women:
I’ve been thinking more lately about the narrow standards of
attractiveness that video game characters of all genders are forced to fit
into. This
anon is correct when they say that “every main male character in every game
is mid 30s white guy with brown hair.”
I suppose they
are also correct that “the typical male characters are also all incredibly
fit and attractive looking as well.” (I think Nathan Drake is reasonably
attractive and since they all look the same I guess that means I think they’re
all reasonably attractive…whelp.) But in all seriousness, they almost all fit a
generic idea of conventional attractiveness, as do most female characters.
That doesn’t mean that it’s the same.
The kind of attractive that these male characters are
expected to be is not the same kind that female characters are expected to be.
This is common across many mediums, not just games, and it’s why things like The Hawkeye Initiative exist, and @bikiniarmorbattledamage has a “sexy
male armor” tag that looks ridiculous. We expect to see women contorting
themselves and wearing few clothes, and we simply don’t expect the same for
men. It looks strange. But it should look strange on anyone – these women do look ridiculous, you’re just used to
it.
Both male and female characters have a spectrum of possible
representations. In the centre, with overlap, is the generic face, with the
male version presented above. Nathan Drake has his equivalent in Elena Fisher,
who is the same kind of generic attractive. Joel has Tess. Male Shep has Fem
Shep.
And throughout games there are oversexualised female
characters like this. I don’t think that anyone would argue with that, even if
they don’t see it as a problem. There is no equivalent for male characters on
this end of the spectrum. Oversexualised male characters simply don’t occur,
primarily because we have no model for creating them. Decades of media have
honed contorted spines and barely there clothes for women, but the tropes
simply aren’t there for men. Much virtual ink has been spilled about the
sexualisation implied by Overwatch’s Hanzo’s exposed pec, but it neither
invites objectification nor has the same media history behind it as
Widowmaker’s open catsuit.
With mention of Overwatch, we can return to the
aforementioned spectrum. In the generically attractive middle, you have
characters like Hanzo and Symmetra. We see gendered differences here too,
though – both show skin but Symmetra’s is designed to draw the eye to legs and
hips and serves no purpose beyond this, whereas Hanzo’s brings the attention to
the power of his bow arm and significant tattoo.
A quick aside: this power demonstrated by Hanzo and other
generically attractive male characters like the white dudes shown at the top
isn’t “sexualisation for women’s benefit,” it’s supposed to be aspirational for
men, as best demonstrated by this
juxtaposition of Hugh Jackman marketed to men vs. women.
To return to Overwatch, we can move down the spectrum to
more sexualised characters like Widowmaker, and there is no equivalent
sexualised male characters (mostly since this is impossible, as they would look
ridiculous due to our expectations, like I said). Then we can move towards less
conventionally attractive characters.
Probably the least conventionally attractive female hero is
Zarya, who was created specifically to counter concerns about all the earlier
female heroes looking the same. But she serves to show how limited the options
are for female characters, with people citing to me her “strong jaw” and
“facial scar” as making her completely unattractive. Yet she doesn’t vary that
strongly from the norm, with a standard, youthful face, and even manages to have tropes like the boobplate incorporated into her armour.
Then you have the conventionally unattractive male heroes. Roadhog
is a great character and representation for fat men, but we so rarely see
any female characters who look like that. Because they can only fall
closer to the centre on the spectrum. This is easily demonstrable by comparing
Roadhog to the chubby Mei, who adheres more closely to “acceptable” standards,
being completely covered in thick fabric that obscures her actual size, and
being shown as flat stomached and large breasted in her concept art. Roadhog,
on the other hand, is unapologetically and obviously large and round.
To put it shortly, in Overwatch, the men get to be anything and everything, whereas the women fit into a series of similar archetypes (source).
And this isn’t just about Overwatch, it applies across
games. Male characters get vastly wider options, whereas female characters are
stuck in the same rut of conventional attractiveness. And even when male
characters fall into these same standards, which they often do, they are still
more likely to look realistic and not to be outright sexualised. Those are the
main differences.
Despite what some assume, we don’t deny that male characters have their own share of common design tropes (which, paired with characterization cliches, make up their own bingo game), we just ask not to claim they’re equivalent to the issues female characters have.
It is really important to not conflate problems of generic male hero design with problems of sexualized heroine design. They come from completely different places and it’s dishonest to treat them as interchangeable.
And yes, even with the existence of generically attractive male character, both in this game and media as a whole, male heroes still have more moulds to fill than their female counterparts.
I’ve been thinking more lately about the narrow standards of
attractiveness that video game characters of all genders are forced to fit
into. This
anon is correct when they say that “every main male character in every game
is mid 30s white guy with brown hair.”
I suppose they
are also correct that “the typical male characters are also all incredibly
fit and attractive looking as well.” (I think Nathan Drake is reasonably
attractive and since they all look the same I guess that means I think they’re
all reasonably attractive…whelp.) But in all seriousness, they almost all fit a
generic idea of conventional attractiveness, as do most female characters.
That doesn’t mean that it’s the same.
The kind of attractive that these male characters are
expected to be is not the same kind that female characters are expected to be.
This is common across many mediums, not just games, and it’s why things like The Hawkeye Initiative exist, and @bikiniarmorbattledamage has a “sexy
male armor” tag that looks ridiculous. We expect to see women contorting
themselves and wearing few clothes, and we simply don’t expect the same for
men. It looks strange. But it should look strange on anyone – these women do look ridiculous, you’re just used to
it.
Both male and female characters have a spectrum of possible
representations. In the centre, with overlap, is the generic face, with the
male version presented above. Nathan Drake has his equivalent in Elena Fisher,
who is the same kind of generic attractive. Joel has Tess. Male Shep has Fem
Shep.
And throughout games there are oversexualised female
characters like this. I don’t think that anyone would argue with that, even if
they don’t see it as a problem. There is no equivalent for male characters on
this end of the spectrum. Oversexualised male characters simply don’t occur,
primarily because we have no model for creating them. Decades of media have
honed contorted spines and barely there clothes for women, but the tropes
simply aren’t there for men. Much virtual ink has been spilled about the
sexualisation implied by Overwatch’s Hanzo’s exposed pec, but it neither
invites objectification nor has the same media history behind it as
Widowmaker’s open catsuit.
With mention of Overwatch, we can return to the
aforementioned spectrum. In the generically attractive middle, you have
characters like Hanzo and Symmetra. We see gendered differences here too,
though – both show skin but Symmetra’s is designed to draw the eye to legs and
hips and serves no purpose beyond this, whereas Hanzo’s brings the attention to
the power of his bow arm and significant tattoo.
A quick aside: this power demonstrated by Hanzo and other
generically attractive male characters like the white dudes shown at the top
isn’t “sexualisation for women’s benefit,” it’s supposed to be aspirational for
men, as best demonstrated by this
juxtaposition of Hugh Jackman marketed to men vs. women.
To return to Overwatch, we can move down the spectrum to
more sexualised characters like Widowmaker, and there is no equivalent
sexualised male characters (mostly since this is impossible, as they would look
ridiculous due to our expectations, like I said). Then we can move towards less
conventionally attractive characters.
Probably the least conventionally attractive female hero is
Zarya, who was created specifically to counter concerns about all the earlier
female heroes looking the same. But she serves to show how limited the options
are for female characters, with people citing to me her “strong jaw” and
“facial scar” as making her completely unattractive. Yet she doesn’t vary that
strongly from the norm, with a standard, youthful face, and even manages to have tropes like the boobplate incorporated into her armour.
Then you have the conventionally unattractive male heroes. Roadhog
is a great character and representation for fat men, but we so rarely see
any female characters who look like that. Because they can only fall
closer to the centre on the spectrum. This is easily demonstrable by comparing
Roadhog to the chubby Mei, who adheres more closely to “acceptable” standards,
being completely covered in thick fabric that obscures her actual size, and
being shown as flat stomached and large breasted in her concept art. Roadhog,
on the other hand, is unapologetically and obviously large and round.
To put it shortly, in Overwatch, the men get to be anything and everything, whereas the women fit into a series of similar archetypes (source).
And this isn’t just about Overwatch, it applies across
games. Male characters get vastly wider options, whereas female characters are
stuck in the same rut of conventional attractiveness. And even when male
characters fall into these same standards, which they often do, they are still
more likely to look realistic and not to be outright sexualised. Those are the
main differences.
Despite what some assume, we don’t deny that male characters have their own share of common design tropes (which, paired with characterization cliches, make up their own bingo game), we just ask not to claim they’re equivalent to the issues female characters have.
It is really important to not conflate problems of generic male hero design with problems of sexualized heroine design. They come from completely different places and it’s dishonest to treat them as interchangeable.
And yes, even with the existence of generically attractive male character, both in this game and media as a whole, male heroes still have more moulds to fill than their female counterparts.
