In the first reading, the author refers to the fact that the male protagonists in the Silent Hill franchise are not your usual ace-shot, muscle-bound, kung fu master gorillas. Instead, they are clumsy, tend to fall down stairs, and have no special fighting skills unless you count the great art of running away. Furthermore, on page 15 of the PDF they continue: "Yet, as previously noted, these are not traditional heroes, as they are variously feminized through narrative, design, and location. And while these individuals might adopt the heroic stance of masculinity, it is a position that is constantly problematized and frustrated." Here is the problem discussed in class, namely, that studies about gender in video games are themselves prone to sexism. In trying to establish that there are actually non-stereotypical male protagonists the author must associate them with incompetent "feminized" characteristics.
Additionally, earlier in the article it discusses how Silent Hill 3, through navigation, destruction of monsters, solving of problems and overcoming of obstacles recreates a typically male drive to "conquer, kill and colonize". In summary, that masculine gameplay overrides the femininity of the protagonist.
In my opinion, I think people start to go wrong the moment they attribute specific characteristics to each gender without wondering if that's truly the case or why we do this. Is the instinct to "kill, conquer and colonize" purely a male thing? I think Joan of Arc and Cleopatra would have something to say. Girl gangs are ubiquitous around the world and I'm sure in some cases women can be even more violent than men. After all, "woman's virtue is man's greatest invention".
However, I would whole-heartedly agree with the idea that players choose avatars based on their functionality, not their gender or appearance. If I play a game such as Tekken, I don't care what they look like or whether they happen to be male or female. But I do care if they have super powers that let me win and crush the competition in a blaze of (masculine?) glory.
I don't know whether editing the post will change the time, so I'll just add a comment.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, Kennedy's article notes that the girl gaming community bemoans the lack of any strong female characters in gaming and that the ones that exist are stupid. But we DO have a strong female character in Lara Croft. Is this saying that we can't have a strong female with agency if she is attractive or objectified in any way? This absolutely reeks of the time I sat in on a sociology lecture with my friend and the professor pointed her out as giving in to male standards of conforming beauty because she *gasp* wore makeup. The bottom line is that women do not value attractiveness simply to impress men, but also because it makes US feel better about ourselves. Kennedy also calls for a broader range of females to be showcased in games. I'm all for females with more agency and intelligence, but, at the same time, isn't a large part of all sorts of media about fantasy? I play games, read books and watch movies for escapism. Lara Croft appeals to me, but playing the avatar of an average, untalented, slightly chubby housewife or something along those lines does not.