Feminism general thread

[Avistew]

Actually, it is similar to the Bechdel test: it's not made to be followed in any way, just to make people notice that something is very, very wrong, and hopefully motivate people to do something about it.

[Deedles]

Aye. I've seen confusion from people who seem to think that if a film fails the Bechdel test then that means it's meant to be bad, but that is really not the case.

[Avistew]

Nor does passing the test make a movie good or, for that matter, not sexist.

The idea is that it's a ridiculously low standard. So when so many movies (or companies) fail to pass it, it shows a systemic problem. Not a problem with any given movie (or company) but a more general problem.

Artificially making it so a piece of work passes the test does not solve the problems that the test was meant to highlight.

[Master Gunner]

Whenever I see somebody going down the path of using the Bechdel test to judge films, I tend to bring up two points: Debbie Does Dallas passes the test, Shawshank Redemption fails it.

However, the test has certainly done a lot to highlight the lopsidedness of the film industry - even if some people still stubbornly refuse to concede the point (see: the latest Ghostbusters brouhaha).

[phlip]

Artificially making it so a piece of work passes the test does not solve the problems that the test was meant to highlight.

Over-reliance on individual metrics is a big problem... and not just in situations like this. Any time you want to improve thing A, and try to measure your progress by measuring related thing B, people are going to start trying to directly improve thing B, even to the detriment of thing A.

In school, they call it "teaching to the test"... if I'm a maths teacher, and I stop teaching my students how to maths, and instead teach them how to answer a maths test, then I can improve my students' results on the tests, but they'll be worse at actually knowing maths. Any time a teacher has taught you things like solving a multiple-choice test question by process of elimination, or suchlike, that's you falling into the failure mode of the metric. It's why tying teacher's pay to their students' test results is such a dangerous idea, if done poorly, as it compounds the perverse incentives to overfit the metric.

Or think of a store that badgers you to leave a 5-star review on Yelp, or an eBay seller that tries to guilt-trip you into leaving positive feedback... they're actively harming their customer experience (in a small way, at least at first) in order to improve their score on a metric designed to measure their customer experience.

In films, the overreliance on the simple metric of "does this movie have any female characters" resulted in tokenism - the very thing that the Bechdel test is specifically designed to point out... the whole point is if a lot of movies have female characters but fail the Bechdel test, there's probably a lot of token characters in there. But if the Bechdel test gets too well-known, and movies start actively trying to put scenes in their otherwise-horribly-sexist movies to pass the test, then all you've done is push the problem up a level... gone from having a token female character to having two token female characters with a token conversation, which isn't a huge improvement.

Which is where things like this "Dave test" come into it... having a bunch of different tests which all essentially highlight the same thing, rather than having just the Bechdel test that you always go back to, makes it easier to keep the focus on the actual problem, rather than developing a superficial focus on the metric, which isn't nearly as important.

[Rikadyn]

I'm kinda waiting for the next Generic Brown Shooter to be announced to have a female main character.

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

The test I kind of do is two parted. Firstly you gender swap everyone in the story, those who can't be gender swapped because being male/female is a core to their character (i.e. Juno in Juno) remain the same. Then for those who have been gender swapped, you ask "Would the story still work?" or "How much rewriting has to be done for it to work?"*. If the story doesn't work, or it would need a lot of rewriting to be a coherent narrative then your story maybe a little sexist.

It's not a perfect system, but it can be a good acid test.


*Not including re-writing words such as "She said this" to "He said this" etc.

[MetricFurlong]

The test I kind of do is two parted. Firstly you gender swap everyone in the story, those who can't be gender swapped because being male/female is a core to their character (i.e. Juno in Juno) remain the same. Then for those who have been gender swapped, you ask "Would the story still work?" or "How much rewriting has to be done for it to work?"*. If the story doesn't work, or it would need a lot of rewriting to be a coherent narrative then your story maybe a little sexist.

There's a bit of a difficulty in drawing a line between characters who don't work in the story unless they're one gender and characters where their gender is core to their character. After all, those question are generally the ones you'd use when trying to determine if a character's gender is important to the story in the first-place.
You could possibly find one if you divorced them from the context of their stories, but I don't think that would leave with very. Consider that if Juno is taken out of context of her story, there's no particularly strong reason why she has to be a cis girl rather than a trans boy.

Your test does spot the problem of 'non-default' characters only being included where their status is 'important to the story', but you can have similar default problems from making said status a defining feature of the character in the first place.


There's also the fact that a story where the entire cast is the same gender and any number of them could be gender swapped with no difficulties whatsoever passes this test, when that should probably be sending-up a few red flags, but I suspect you're already aware of that

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

There's a bit of a difficulty in drawing a line between characters who don't work in the story unless they're one gender and characters where their gender is core to their character. After all, those question are generally the ones you'd use when trying to determine if a character's gender is important to the story in the first-place. You could possibly find one if you divorced them from the context of their stories, but I don't think that would leave with very. Consider that if Juno is taken out of context of her story, there's no particularly strong reason why she has to be a cis girl rather than a trans boy.

Not really. The key aspect there is "if Juno is taken out of context of her story", you're changing the very point of the movie in order to change her gender (or sex). This would only apply to characters where you cannot change their gender (or aptly sex) because of an event in the story they can only experience. The fact is that this would apply to very few characters, mostly to do with birth. (Yes a Trangender man (women to male) could have a baby, but then you're saying they *have* to be that gender, which is not the point of the test).

Your test does spot the problem of 'non-default' characters only being included where their status is 'important to the story', but you can have similar default problems from making said status a defining feature of the character in the first place.

The test is more to identify stereotypes of gender in a character. Or moreover, when a character is written to only apply to one gender, when it's not needed.

A simple example could be Mario:

If Mario was a women, going around saving the mushroom kingdom, it would work.
If Peach was a man, getting kidnapped all the time without much of a struggle, there would be many people who'd question why he's getting kidnapped all the time.

Therefore you'd conclude that Peach can only work as a female; which of course is stupid, and shows that her character is too one dimensional and shallow. Also, the other point can be raised is "Why does it only work if Peach is female?", which of course then shows how bad the trope is (and also sexist) that it apparently only 'works' with one gender.

And that's kind of the point. If you're left thinking "this seems silly with [the other gender] doing this role", then perhaps the reverse applies, and it's silly, and stereotyping, that the original gender is that character.


The fact that when this is done, you'd find that it's more often then not the female character that can't really be done by a male character shows how shallowly written a lot of female characters are. Which of course is bad.

There's also the fact that a story where the entire cast is the same gender and any number of them could be gender swapped with no difficulties whatsoever passes this test, when that should probably be sending-up a few red flags, but I suspect you're already aware of that

Yes, that is one of the points of the tests, to the ask "why so are all the cast one gender if it won't change their character?".





I'm not saying this test is 100% fool proof and always works (no test always works), but it at least allows a way to question why a character is given a role within a narrative; and if that narrative is gender biased.

[MotorWaffle]

A simple example could be Mario:

If Mario was a women, going around saving the mushroom kingdom, it would work.
If Peach was a man, getting kidnapped all the time without much of a struggle, there would be many people who'd question why he's getting kidnapped all the time.

Therefore you'd conclude that Peach can only work as a female; which of course is stupid, and shows that her character is too one dimensional and shallow. Also, the other point can be raised is "Why does it only work if Peach is female?", which of course then shows how bad the trope is (and also sexist) that it apparently only 'works' with one gender.

Hate to be that guy, but people question why Peach gets kidnapped all the time as-is. It's kind of the big running joke of the series at this point.

[plummeting_sloth]

Considering how miss applied the Betchel test can often be, I wonder if a companies response to a high Dave score would be "Damn... this looks bad. We need to hire more Steve"s

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

A simple example could be Mario:

If Mario was a women, going around saving the mushroom kingdom, it would work.
If Peach was a man, getting kidnapped all the time without much of a struggle, there would be many people who'd question why he's getting kidnapped all the time.

Therefore you'd conclude that Peach can only work as a female; which of course is stupid, and shows that her character is too one dimensional and shallow. Also, the other point can be raised is "Why does it only work if Peach is female?", which of course then shows how bad the trope is (and also sexist) that it apparently only 'works' with one gender.

Hate to be that guy, but people question why Peach gets kidnapped all the time as-is. It's kind of the big running joke of the series at this point.

Very true, but the questions are less about her gender, and more about her lack of national security in the Mushroom Kingdom.

Maybe it wasn't phrased well, but the point was that fewer people question Peach getting kidnapped because she's female. Imagine if Mario had never existed, and suddenly Nintendo bought out a game where it was a female called Marina saving the Prince Peach; I would bet you'd find a lot more people saying how silly it is that the Prince needs saving then it would be for the reverse to happen.


EDIT: Which again is stupid that a reversal of a trope would be weird (showing how bad the trope is) but we're not applying progressive standards here, more of the views of the general population, which I'm afraid would question why a Prince is being kidnapped so often.

[Metcarfre]

On the subject of the Bechdel test and the Ghostbusters reboot, who knew Bechdel-test-passing movies performed better at the box office?

[MotorWaffle]

A simple example could be Mario:

If Mario was a women, going around saving the mushroom kingdom, it would work.
If Peach was a man, getting kidnapped all the time without much of a struggle, there would be many people who'd question why he's getting kidnapped all the time.

Therefore you'd conclude that Peach can only work as a female; which of course is stupid, and shows that her character is too one dimensional and shallow. Also, the other point can be raised is "Why does it only work if Peach is female?", which of course then shows how bad the trope is (and also sexist) that it apparently only 'works' with one gender.

Hate to be that guy, but people question why Peach gets kidnapped all the time as-is. It's kind of the big running joke of the series at this point.

Very true, but the questions are less about her gender, and more about her lack of national security in the Mushroom Kingdom.

Maybe it wasn't phrased well, but the point was that fewer people question Peach getting kidnapped because she's female. Imagine if Mario had never existed, and suddenly Nintendo bought out a game where it was a female called Marina saving the Prince Peach; I would bet you'd find a lot more people saying how silly it is that the Prince needs saving then it would be for the reverse to happen.


EDIT: Which again is stupid that a reversal of a trope would be weird (showing how bad the trope is) but we're not applying progressive standards here, more of the views of the general population, which I'm afraid would question why a Prince is being kidnapped so often.

Was there ever controversy based on gender in the multiple games where Mario himself has been the one held captive?

[Deedles]

Was there ever controversy based on gender in the multiple games where Mario himself has been the one held captive?

I can think of Luigi's Mansion and Super Princess Peace. Am I forgetting any?

[Elomin Sha]

Super Princess Peach - Regarding Mario being captured, no. Peaching being emotional, yes.

[MotorWaffle]

Mario is Missing.
Super Princess Peach was incredibly sexist for a variety of non-kidnap related reasons.

[Valkyrie-Lemons]

Not controversy, but they've comparatively sold a lot fewer then the main series.

Also, I'm not sure about multiple games, I'm pretty sure the only gender role reversal has only been in one game (although I'm not an expert on Mario). If you're talking about Super Princess Peach, the fact she cries at enemies to beat them is...well if you apply the test to that, is something that would seem odd for a male character to do; meaning that Peach is arguably not exactly given a very empowering role.

[korvys]

I'm curious if anyone can come up with games where the protagonist being male is central to the story (in a similar way to Juno). The only I can think of off the top of my head is an indie game called Castle Doctrine, which (at least the way the creator explained it) explores the way men have a societal responsibility to be the protector of the family. The Last of Us might be similar, but I also haven't played it.

[Avistew]

The Last of Us would work perfectly fine with the genders reversed. A female acting in a parental protective role is hardly unheard of.

For someone's sex to matter in the same way Juno's does, I would say it would have to rely on paternity or something. If the game is about figuring out if a child is yours or finding out if you have a child, it would be much harder to do with someone who was female-bodied, although technically possible since female-bodied people aren't required to carry their biological children either. Still, that would require a more involved fertilisation process than the one used with a male-bodied protagonist.

[Duckay]

Korvys, I had a long post prepared explaining my list until I realized that you had said "game", not "film" or "media" as I had thought you'd said.

[korvys]

On second thought, my question might have been a bit "but what about men". The same is true of women. Most women in games aren't really there to be women, but to be either a generic character that could be anyone, or an object. There are very few games that explore the differences (either inherent, or societally applied) between the genders.

[Avistew]

Honestly, I'm fine with that. I want my characters to be their own person and not a spokesperson for the whole gender (or race, or orientation). Which is why more of them is good, both within a single piece of media and in general.

So for instance, more games with a female main character could be great but if it's the only female character in the game it's not necessarily that much better. She could still be the token female.

Of course when there is a really small amount of characters, that doesn't apply. Having just one female character makes sense when there are only 2 or 3 characters. Less so when there are 10 or 20.

[Amake]

I seem to remember a scene in Metal Gear Solid 3 where The Boss gives herself a c-section hours before leading the charge on Normandy, though that may only have happened in Last Days of Fox-Hound.

Though either way it shows what I think is the significant difference between the sexes: If you have a character actively giving birth to a child they probably need to be female. Otherwise you can very well get away with any sexes and any genders if you really want to. And your birthing scene may not even be essential to the character, I mean it doesn't serve any purpose in that story other than showing The Boss being badass.

So I think if you want a game about a male with a role that could not be filled with a female, you may have to look long and hard. There may be a market for a game about making someone (or several someones) pregnant specifically by having sex with them, but as far as I know it's yet untapped.

But Castle Doctrine sounds like it could be a game specifically about a masculine gender trait that could only be about a man, and I guess that shows us what gender roles do: Because a man is expected by society to act a certain way, you need a man in that role to make social commentary about it. Not that he couldn't be a trans man without changing any part of the story, but anyway, that seems to me to be the limit of gender limitations in stories.

An interesting question might be what specifically feminine gender roles women play in games, other than kidnapping victims. Do their roles tend to be less complex, more like caricatures of people? (Probably yes.) Does that tell us women's roles in society are similarly limited? Some sayings about mothers, wives and daughters spring to mind.

Just some thoughts.

[MotorWaffle]

From a gender perspective, yes, main characters tend to be interchangable in terms of gender, hence why more and more games are allowing the player to choose what gender they want to be. Even more recent "bro" games like Call of Duty have allowed the player to choose a female soldier for multiplayer (which is arguably more of the main game than the story mode) who is no different than the male variety.

As to complexity in female characters, I don't think publishers feel comfortable with it partly because complex means flaws. I'm sorry if this sounds offensive, but the flaws in female characters tend to be put under much more scrutiny as well as seen as representative of the entire gender. I'm sure many of you have seen the "Galbrush Threepwood" argument, that states that while no one cares that Guybrush is seen as physically incapable, the worst pirate ever, and the constant victim of physical and emotional abuse by everyone else in the game, if you changed Guybrush to a girl and presented her the same way, it would come under HEAVY fire for presenting a woman as physically weak and the target of abuse.

Do you think that the current gender climate could handle a female character with the flaws that make the lovable looser archetype? How about the lecherous pervert or brooding alcoholic? Or would those all be seen as statements as to the weakness of women as a whole? I'm not saying it can't work, I was just wondering your opinions.