Quote:
Originally Posted by Laquert
There are two things I take issue which here:
1. While misogyny being portrayed negatively is somewhat true, the biggest backlash that came behind the almost rape scene wasn't that it was an almost rape. It was because a dev went out on record and stated that the objective was to cause players (a player base assumed to be male) to want to protect a vulnerable Lara. This undermines the use of the misogyny because the objective stops being "I want to see Lara, a vulnerable character, overcome adversity" to "I, the male player, want to protect Lara, a vulnerable female, from dangerous men."
2. You're assuming that there is an equivalence to sexualized torture in media. I don't think that's true. Compare the torture scene in Casino Royale to the almost rape from Tomb Raider. Do you think they are equal? Are the torturers receiving the same gratification from their actions?
In this example the issue was that Samus, our female hero, is in canon a powerful and independent figure. However, in Other M she doesn't suffer from the Bag of Spilling: she starts the game with all the cool toys we've seen her use in all other games. However, she chooses not to use them until her ex-boyfriend informs her she can. In this example, the female hero has no independence: she starts with all the tools she needs to beat the game, but the player is incapable of using them until a male authority informs her she can, and throughout the game yields to this authority's opinion.
The problem here isn't that open abuse of women is bad (because no abuse of anyone should be acceptable): it's that we are allowing gender to dictate what types of abuse is "okay" and what isn't. The very idea that hating a woman based on her gender is a step towards equal treatment is obscene because no one ever portrays a character who hates men for the fact they are men, and has that character accepted as reasonable. The treatments are unequal because they are not compatible across gender.
This thought is poison. It is poison because the genders of these villains are men, and there is no male parallel for misogyny that is considered mature and taken seriously.
Take those scenes from before and reverse the genders. Is Casino Royale's torture scene the same if James Bond is a woman? If the villain is a woman? Is Lara's almost rape the same if she were a man and the attacker a woman?
Also, mandatory tropes vs women link:
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/...in-video-games |
Thank you for your insight, and well thought out commentary.
I'll start with Metroid: As I stated, I was not familiar with the scenario, and if it is the way you described, then its simply foolish--there are better ways to limit an arsenal at the beginning of a game. Not much more to say there.
As to the developers comments on Tomb Raider, I'd have to agree with you--in that context, you're again diminishing the independence of a female character that is supposed to be strong and independent.
As to your first comment on Casino Royale--I would direct you to psychological studies on those who commit rape and torture because they enjoy it--it is about domination, control and inflicting pain--not about sexual pleasure in the traditional sense. In that context, if the individual doing the torturing is getting pleasure from it, they most likely would enjoy both scenarios.
I have two issues with your comment on gender dictating what type of abuse is okay. The first also relates to your comment on my TL,DR, and is simply that I was pointing out that misogyny, or the hatred of women, is necessary in the context of a female hero, as the villain must hate the hero (in a simplistic interpretation), and by strict definition, that is misogyny. The male counterpart, misandry, is never used simply because a man hating a man, or hurting a man, or torturing a man, is something no one thinks twice about. In fact, it is possible to write a female misandrist as a hero and it be justified. This leads into my second point, which was the primary point: the word misogyny comes up if you have a female hero--the villain must be a misogynist... isn't it more likely they just don't like the hero?
As to your final point, yes: still torture, still rape. Interpretation would be different, execution of it in a manner that could be portrayed in a non-adult film/M-game would be more difficult, but it is still the same. If you'd like explicit explanations, I can go further--rape of men, by both men and women, does occur, as does sexualized torture of men by both men and women.
My primary point here is simple: I believe in equal treatment, which means I see no difference in a hero being tortured regardless of gender--the difference in how it is done is a side effect of differences in anatomy. The issue here is that if the villain is male and the hero female, he MUST be a a misogynist... but if the hero is male, the villain isn't a misandrist.
Technically speaking, one should hate all members of the female gender to be a misogynist, or all members of the male gender to be a misandrist--and I find it doubtful that villains are usually developed to an extent that we can say that about them--although there are a few circumstances where that is the case.
However, I must retract my earlier comment about the examples not fitting the poster's point--in this context, they are very good examples of something wrong with the developers though process.
