I sometimes feel like my back is against the wall with this whole feminism thing. I know that even referring to it as “this whole feminism thing” reeks of indifference toward a very real struggle, but every once in a great while indifference seems like the correct response when so-called fangirl feminists are always there to tell me I’m doing it wrong.
Take feminist gaming critic Anita Sarkeesian and her war on misogyny. Now I’m no Sarkeesian hater, a lot of her viewpoints I agree with wholeheartedly, but I sometimes get the feeling that she finds sexism in places where the portrayal of empowered women is alive and well. Her criticism of Bayonetta is a prime example of this. In her feminist frequency webseries she thoroughly dismisses the game as misogynistic for its portrayal of its scantily clad title heroine, claiming that everything about the character is offensive.
What Sarkeesian did not seem to realize (since it became quickly clear that she had never played the game before) was that the character she was criticizing is not only gorgeously rendered, but so impossibly badass the fact that she moves like a burlesque dancer and dresses like a dominatrix (two things that are not inherently bad), are basically afterthoughts, although it’s worth saying that there isn’t a moment in the game where she doesn’t have complete control over her sexuality.
Additionally, Bayonetta is confident, sensitive, funny, fearless, has a compelling backstory, is shown the utmost respect by her male sidekicks and interacts consistently with her female allies, and would likely spit in the face of anyone who suggests that she’s a mere sex object if she weren’t so classy. Seriously, what is the assumption that every woman who puts on a sexy outfit is solely interested in pleasing men? How is that any less sexist? If Sarkeesian wants to complain about sexism in games, she has plenty of better material, and it might help to actually play the games she reviews or at the very least research them instead of making assumptions based on titillating cover art and lecturing those who would see it for its abundant charms. I know that targeting a woman who only seems to have the best interests of other women at heart may seem like a dick move, but if that’s how you interpret my words I have a story you might find interesting.
I remember going to restaurants with my mother when I was young. Doing so was usually a fun and exciting experience, seeing as for ten year old me, aside from visiting starbucks or the mall there was nothing more glamorous than eating at a restaurant, but as she was so apt to do, my mother sometimes managed to turn one of my favorite pastimes into an embarrassing experience. On more than one occasion I would find myself cowering low in my seat as she would reprimand the innocent minimum wage earning twenty something year old who dared to take too long to bring our food to the table.
To her the only explanation for us having to wait five minutes longer than we should wasn’t the kitchen being understaffed or maybe just a brain fart on behalf of the restaurant, no, it was the color of our skin, a notion she never shied away from making angrily known to the usually perfectly friendly and apologetic servers who were probably too busy counting the hours until they could punch out and return home to the sweet embrace of weed to worry how much melanin was in our skin. On the rare occasions I mustered up the guts to gently and politely ask my mom what the hell her problem was, she would often point to that immortal quote by Martin Luther King Jr (yes, I’m quoting Dr. King, bear with me).
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Those words always resonated with me, maybe not in the way she wanted them to, because even at ten I could clearly tell the difference between true injustice and waiting too long for fries, but as a young girl of patient disposition I learned early on that sometimes keeping one’s ear to the ground is necessary, if only for the sometimes elusive purpose of seperating the two. I suppose I should thank her for preparing me, because as a grown woman I find that my brimstone spewing mother has been replaced not by a person, but by several, including Sarkeesian, that insist I not only see the injustice they claim is everywhere, but fight so vehemently against it I end up alienating people that are usually firmly on my side.
I’m just going to leave this here. Cosplayer is TraumaticCandy.
I’m talking of course about feminism, the movement that has been so consistently perverted by people who subscribe to the bitching over late fries brand of activism that even the word has taken on an negative connotation. I will proudly refer to myself as a feminist, but I can’t pretend that there is a good reason so many people don’t. Women being portrayed as sexy is not always misogynistic, sometimes late fries are simply late fries.
As someone who considers herself a bona fide member of the nerd community, I have dealt with my share of misogyny, from the depraved catcalling that makes me want to throw a parka over my skimpy superhero costume as I make my way through the exhibit hall at a convention, to the fact that a decent superhero film starring a female hero has yet to be produced among the dozens of acclaimed cape flicks that we’ve been blessed with over the years, to the very fact that the term fake fangirl even exists. I get that there is a problem, even in the supposedly all inclusive, progressive geek circuit. I fully understand why feminist fangirls have made it their journey to point out the things that are so very wrong with the way women are treated in the culture dominating geek community, what I don’t get are the feminist fangirls (or in some cases, feminist fanboys) who rally against everything that can be even vaguely construed as sexist, often to the point of indirectly insulting the women they are supposedly trying to protect. What would Sarkeesian make of a woman who would proudly rock a Bayonetta costume, not because she feels no sense of self worth unless she’s feeding the baser desires of sexually frustrated men, but because she loves that character as much as the game developer (a woman, btw) clearly did when she created her? Not that any woman would ever identify with such a sexist representation.
This year at Comic Con I had the pleasure of viewing a screening of Batman: Assault on Arkham, the latest in a line of acclaimed animated films based on The DC Universe. I personally found the film to be perfectly enjoyable, funny, action-packed, quick moving, just about everything a comics fan could ask for from a film. And from a feminist standpoint, aside from the fact that the female character of Killer Frost was the only one with a terribly impractical costume (and to be fair, with her powers she doesn’t exactly need one) I found it to be one of the least problematic films I’ve seen in recent memory. It passes the Bechdel test, the three main female characters are well drawn with distinctive, fun personalities, their body types (aside from Amanda Waller, refreshingly drawn with her traditional heavyset form intact) while not the most realistic were at least possible, and it can even be said the highlight of the film was fan favorite Harley Quinn.
When you have superpowers, a little impracticality is acceptable.
For these reasons I had to wonder during the Q and A session following the film, why a disgruntled fan took it upon himself to put the movie down for its blatant sexism. “What sexism?” was the only thing that went through my mind at the man’s comment before I remembered that there was more than one implied nude scene involving the female characters in the film. Granted the same could be said about the male characters, but for the sake of argument, lets focus on the women. I get that women are too often sexualized in comics and the media that inspires them, they’re too often drawn with grotesque proportions and portrayed as mere extensions of their male counterparts, but does that mean that women being portrayed as sexy and desirable and in possesion of certain titillating body parts is in and of itself a negative thing? If a female character is written as having her own concerns and agency over her own body, which all of the women in Assault on Arkham were, is it right to claim that she is somehow being objectified if she shows some skin?
I have always been of the mind that women can be objectified, but can not objectify themselves. The difference between the two rests on one word, agency. A woman wearing a sexy costume of her choosing at a con is not objectifying herself, the dick yelling “nice ass” at her is the one doing the objectifying, and it’s worth saying that for every guy that catcalls me when I’m in my costume, there are a hundred more who can either hold their tongues or pay me perfectly respectful compliments. I’m not saying that catcalling and harassment aren’t problems, just that labeling an entire group of people is wrong and unhelpful anyway you look at it, whether it’s the girls in the sexy costumes, or the men standing by. Not every woman who dresses up in a tight catsuit is pandering to the male gaze, and not every man who looks at her is a brainless horndog too controlled by his man parts to see that girl as a person.
Similarly, Emilia Clarke was not objectifying herself by choosing to show her naked body during the first seasons of Game of Thrones, the dicks and dickettes slut shaming her online, sometimes in the name of feminism, were the ones doing the objectifying. Of course it could be said that the showrunners were the ones doing the objectifying, but only if we’re going to label Clarke, someone I’m guessing most of us don’t know, as powerless to make her own decisions in the face of men. The ones criticizing the cosplay girl don’t seem to see the confident girl with mad sewing skills and pride in her body, they see a pair of tits. They don’t see the strong, flawed, complicated character Clarke is playing in a show full of strong, flawed, complicated female characters, they see… well, a pair of tits.
Therein lies the problem with the type of feminism that invariably equates female sexuality with something negative. I get that not every woman wants to be portrayed as sexy, and should in no way be expected to, but what about the ones that don’t mind or even enjoy it? Are they any less representative of what a real woman should be?
I don’t want to tell feminists what they can or can’t be offended by, none of us are the same, we all have different feelings and concerns and it’s impossible to please everyone. But at a certain point it begins to feel like nobody can win. If all women are portrayed as desexualized and compentent due to her masculine traits, this is a problem, if all women are portrayed as sex toys for their male counterparts, this is also a problem. Perhaps the solution is treating every woman like her own person, whether sexual, asexual, feminine, masculine, androgynous, brilliant, stupid, average, thin, fat, busty or flat. I feel like we are getting to that point in pop-culture and society in general, but silencing those who are actually doing good isn’t really the answer, if everything is offensive, nothing is.
Doll
Latest posts by Doll (see all)
- You’re Not Making Feminism Better, You’re Making Nerd Culture Worse - November 8, 2014
I think the most unfortunate thing about the backlash to Sarkeesian’s project is that it has defined the conversation solely in terms of pro/con. Because so many people have attacked her project solely for existing at all, criticisms of her work are often perceived as being attacks on her.
Anita Sarkeesian brings up good points, but in an ideal world her project would be the starting point for a conversation about portrayal of women in geeky media in general, because Tropes vs. Women is not the Holy Writ of Feminism in Gaming. It’s a particular opinion and a particular interpretation. I agree with much of it.
But because the response from the internet at large was screaming, mouth frothy apoplectic nerdrage, we don’t get to have that conversation. We get to argue about whether her project should exist at all. Of course, it should.
Dunny if you have actually watched any of her vids, and paid close attention to what she said?
If you actually have, you would note that she babbles a lot, say unsubstantiated postulations, makes up blatant lies all to help her own cause against an imaginary misogynist culture.
Anita is a very intelligent woman, and she has read a lot of PR how to manipulate people, in that she knows it’s completely irrelevant with truth, too many gullible idiots would fall flat for her lies, just keep repeating them and they will eventually believe. Because too many lacks the mental aptitude and critical sense to really dig deep in a case to know what’s really going on, but take things at face value ..one just like you!
At the same time when she insults male gamer non stop and makes these blatant lies about them, then it’s no wonder she ends up with threats on her life, but nothing is better than a lot of PF, even if it’s bad so many will get to know her, she knows that and exploits it heavily!
Great article, just wanted to throw in that the cosplayer featured halfway through is TraumaticCandy
I think, for the most part, I agree that feminist criticism is often overly focused on issues of objectification. However, some of the arguments you lay out against it are too one-sided.
I’ve heard a lot of positive things about Bayonetta’s sexual agency as a character, which is awesome. But Bayonetta also exists beyond the confines of her game, as promotional art and fanfic, and even within the game, players can (mis)interpret her character’s purpose as being primarily about gratifying the straight male audience. While it might not be the fault of the developers that Bayonetta is used this way, pointing out these possible misuses can be valuable criticism.
Criticism of Game of Thrones’ showrunners is an acknowledgement of the very real power that they have, not a denial of Emilia Clarke’s agency. I don’t know how much influence Clarke had over her costuming, but its doubtful she had the uncontested final word. Decisions about what she wears on the show are not just her personal decisions about how she wants to present herself, they are also about the character Danaerys and how she should be portrayed in popular culture.
Criticism isn’t an attack, although it often feels like one. It’s hard to pick apart legitimate criticism from spurious insults. To keep my own criticism from falling into the latter category, I want to say that this piece helped me identify a kind of misuse of feminist criticism I hadn’t thought much about: critiques of objectification being used to try to control what women wear.
I hope this comment isn’t too long to read, but I forgive anyone who gives up on it.
I’ll have to watch that video. I have admittedly never played the game or seen the video, but one thing always strikes me about empowerment through female sexuality: Sexual attractiveness seems to be a prerequisite to empowerment for females. We have to be everything a man is – ANDY sexy. How many heroines exist without sex appeal? The implication that it’s a requirement is what I take issue with.
Anyway, that’s my statement from a position of complete ignorance of the content.
I think this article forgets where we are. We are not in the world of these characters. They may be empowered and respected in their world, but what about ours?
Bayonetta may be bad ass, respected, and may be ok with doing these sexualized moves to fight her enemies, but that seems to be more under the assumption that she is doing it for herself, but she’s not. She is part of a reality that becomes entertainment, and for whom? Sure, there are all kinds of gamers, but the prime demographic targeted is going to be straight males.
This is like the leaked nude photos that had people commenting “why take them in the first place?” Well, adult women can make choices, but then taking those choices out of context removes their agency.
Let’s say there was some attractive (key point, as there are very few unattractive women portrayed in gaming) female vigilante who decided to tease her victims as she served justice, well so be it. That is her choice to do whatever she is doing (though the vigilante part is still illegal, but we can imagine her heart is in the right place).
Now, take her and secretly film her and show it as entertainment. Something changed there, as she is now not doing it for the reasons she thinks she is doing it, and thusly being used. If she were then to be asked if she could be taped and have it distributed that’s whatever, but video game characters don’t get to speak for themselves, only the creator can do that. At that point the creator is never the character, even if the character is based on the creator.
Granted, there is that game where the main character is a giant woman who was video taped to be put into the game. Obviously she knew what was going on, but that game was also a pretty big joke with gameplay behind it.
I feel that most of the arguments made in this article are all based around false logic. You make suggestions that you are an attractive woman yourself, which, if true, puts you in a spot of privilege. It would be like me saying that the argument against a black spiderman wasn’t at all racist since he was never drawn black, but I am a white male and so my privilege blinds me from the fact that the mere anger towards a shift is very racist.
So false logic to defend false logic against materialized real world discussions doesn’t make a valid argument. Add onto that the possible privilege bias and this article felt like something you needed to discuss with people before ripping apart someone elses opinion with your own opinion as if one of you is right-er than the other.
I cannot agree more.
I feel the “author” completely misses what feminism IS. Perhaps, she is entirely basing it off the fact she feels Anita is the feminism flag all of us rally behind. Anita makes valid points that ruffles a lot of feathers much like a very respected and well written blogger, Doctor Nerdlove. She does not speak for all of us and sometimes she misses the mark. She also marks a disclaimer that enjoying it does not mean you can’t be aware these issues exist.That does not render all of her valid points now invalid or means that your “sexy self” can’t flaunt it at some convention. That is what feminism is…equality in it’s most simplistic explanation. I recommend you, dear author, read on some of his own opinions on feminism in a more palatable point of view like: http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2011/11/nerds-and-male-privilege/all/1/
I would recommend you space out your paragraphs and choose things that are less of a rant and more of an article. As a fellow feminist-you have a right to dress as you please. I think more feminists are saying why do all of them have to be sexy without and variety (see aforementioned article). I am sorry. Your writing was trying to read through because it lacked a coherent and logical feel that I feel a blog hoping to spread the good word should have.
Okay, I just watched the video (it wasn’t as long as I anticipated. I find it somewhat alarming that the author of this article doesn’t address the marketing scheme, which seemed to be the bulk of what Sarkeesian takes issue with in her video. There is a disconnect here between the world of gameplay and how the character is portrayed to the general public. In the game itself she may have agency and use her sexuality as a tool, but in the subways of Japan, she is literally stripped by strangers and demonstrates no agency whatsoever. Downgrade really hit this nail on the head with the “taking those choices out of context removes their agency” statement. Though Bayonetta may have agency in the relatively esoteric insiders club of gamers, her portrayal to the general public in the subway is indisputable objectification.
You are being far to charitable to Sarkeesian. You have to remember that even before she parted a bunch of well-meaning, but credulous, schmucks of $158k on kickstarter to fund a small handful of lounge room hobbyist quality DIY videos, she was in the teleseminar business peddling pseudoscientific handwriting analysis self-improvement/get rich quick nonsense. I doubt very much Sarkeesian has any interest whatsoever in actual feminist or gaming issues beyond how she can exploit both for publicity and personal profit.
I’m just wondering why you can use superpowers and wear a pair of plain old blue jeans and a t-shirt. Or just plain everyday clothes.
You have to dress in an abnormal manner to own your sexuality? Must suck for all the women out there shuffling off to their day jobs.
Why the willful turning of the blind eye to the reality of how female protagonists have been portrayed in large part (not exclusively but the greater part)?
Never played the game myself but just going on the images I’ve seen. Should I have to play the game to really “understand” the character’s background re sexual empowerment/ownership? All i see is someone cavorting around in a skin tight leather outfit showing off a ton of sexual appeal. Like a lot of other female protagonists. Not as overtly sexualized as some. More than others.
My impression is just that, my impression knowing nothing else of the game. That’s on who created the character. They didn’t have to give her a leather skin tight outfit. A pair of jeans, t-shirt, and an old leather leather jacket (an “Indy” jacket) would have sufficed.
Right?
No.
If your impression of Bayonetta is only from a trailer or the game cover or screenshots, that is just as bad as judging a book by its cover. Something most folks were taught never to do. The content creator makes things in their vision. Shallow or deep, big or small, ugly or sexy. Its up to the content consumer to either judge it blindly, or properly consume the content to form a more legitimate and respectable opinion.
I have mixed feelings on this. On the one hand, I strongly agree that women can be sexy without being sexualized or objectified, and can in many cases can be empowered as a result. However, this becomes much more problematic in the entertainment context, especially in gaming.
Any artistic work must be considered in its broader cultural context, and the broader cultural context of gaming is one in which women have frequently been portrayed as sexual objects. This does not mean that all women in games or even all conventionally sexy women in games are nothing but sexual objects, but it does color the perception. This is especially true when you take into account marketing strategies and traditional customer bases. Despite the fact that nearly half of gamers are now women, there is still a perception in the community and the business that gamers, especially so-called “hardcore” gamers who are more likely to purchase big budget AAA action games, are mostly young men and teens. A large portion of people working for gaming companies are also men. While the main developer may have been a woman with ideas of making a game about a sexually empowered woman, the studio head who greenlit the game was most likely a man who figured that they could sell a lot of copies by slapping some sexy box art on it. I am deeply skeptical that the game would have sold as well, or even been made at all, if the main character’s personality and sexual empowerment had been left intact, but her character model had been altered to make her less conventionally attractive.
On the other hand, I don’t really see any way to change all the above without putting more sexually empowered female characters out in the media. Basically what I’m getting at is that it’s a complicated issue with a lot of (IMHO) valid yet conflicting points to it. I don’t know. Feel free to ignore my rambling if you wish, I don’t really have a solution one way or the other.