Poll: Which is Worse (for Female Characters): Appearance or Actions/Behaviour/Role?

[MrHide-Patten]

Run for the hills, fellow Escapees, it's a sexism thread, yay. But in all seriousness this is something I'd like to gauge the Escapist on.

Now let's get Obvious out of the way first: A characters appearance that makes sense within the universe or that matches with their personality and goals matters just as much as a character that acts with recognisable human traits and agency.

This issue of which is more detrimental to characters (particularly female ones), arose from the accompanying thread to last weeks article about Deep Downs supposedly all male playable cast and claims of sexism. To which somebody mentioned that they found Dragons Crown more offensive (for obvious reasons to anybody that has seen the game), and that got me thinking; Is the role a character occupies (support character, love interest, damsel, what-have-you) worse than a character appearing sexualised?

There are a few obvious examples for leading female characters who "drive" their respective stories, but their appearance is on the purvey side. A couple of good examples are; Bayonetta, Ryuko Matoi (Kill La Kill), The Sorceress or Amazon (Dragons Crown) and Lara Croft (Tomb Raider).

On the other side of the fence you have female characters whose appearances are for all intentions natural and for the world, but whose roles and actions aren't great role model material or produce a compelling character.  Prominently the likes of Zelda, Samus (Other M) and Peach spring to mind (sorry if that sounds anti-Nintendo, couldn't think of more... too many to pick from).

There have been a few people who have come out in defence for the former franchises and characters, endorsing that they are drawing upon a style or genre, and their sexual appearance is another "justifiable" aspect to their character. For example: Bayonetta uses her sexuality as a weapon, always being the most dominate being in the room, even against giant two headed angel dragons with faces on their bellies. The skimpy magic girl armour from Kill La Kill is to a teach the main character about accepting herself and drugs are bad and to stay in school, but mostly to tell a story about growing up as a girl, societal pressures and aliens (but they seriously need to explain why it's skimpy). My personal quibble with Dragons Crown is that whilst the story follows the class of your choosing, it doesn't drastically affect the plot, and the style referencing classic fantasy art, doesn't exactly elevate the characters. But then it should be understood that it's art and drawings, that in reality all of the characters from Dragons Crown would look hideous (please see the collectible figures for nightmares), but none of that matters because they're DRAWINGS. Finally there is the old Lara Croft, one the first video game sex symbols (despite her creators wishes). Whilst having bosoms that would make a lot of the acrobatics she does a lot harder to do, she still acts based on her own goals (safety for local wildlife and ancient cultural artifacts none withstanding).

Now alternative to the former examples (no biases here). These example dress more appropriately for their universes, but could be argued that their roles are detrimental to female characters as a whole. Firstly; Zelda from the Legend of Zelda (durrr), who on more than one occasion upon discovering she's a princess, gets locked in a cupboard and reduced to a boobie prize (puns), most egregiously in Wind Waker, where she goes from a sassy pirate  queen, to damsel dujour. "Ah" but you say "what about her Shiek persona in Ocarina of Time." Touché sir or madam; but why did Shiek have to be androgynous? Why in order to take a greater part on the plot, did she have to take on masculine qualities? Because Japan's sexist; wheeeeeee!No.
Then there's Peach who's role is either Damsel or 3rd alternative player character (Luigi's always second)... When they can't shove in a Toad. But then there was the time when she helmed her own portable game, where she drew power from her "emotions" (David Cages guilty pleasure game) those crazy things women have while men are off grunting at stumps. Lastly I'm going to rip on Samus's depiction in Metroid Other M. As anybody will tell about the game, refusing to put on life saving armour, until commander dick says you can isn't exactly breaking the glass ceiling for female characters. Now let's not bring up Other M ever again. Ever.

So Escapist community; which is truly the worst thing that can happen to a female character: Dressing skimpily or acting without agency or sense?

 

[Thaluikhain]

Hard to say...though being in a costume simply for the male gaze could be argued to be acting without agency.

OTOH, easy solution there, a world of nekkid people. IF the guys are wearing high heeled shoes and gstrings as well, no so much an issue.

Though, there's more that can be said about actions, they open up more room for criticism.

 

[Dango]

I guess I'd say actions, since even the most scantily clad women can be great characters and role models and women topped of in garb every inch from head to toe can still be terrible.

 

[[Kira Must Die]]

Action without agency or sense, definately. I can look pass skimpy outfits, it didn't stop me from enjoying Kill la Kill.

 

[DANEgerous]

Actions/Behavior/Role by light years. having all women look hyper sexualised is bad I get it but the fact is unless you are talking about ads most are not. No doubt they are more so them men yes fantasy armor is often stupidly slutty but are there mainly just attractive well dressed women? Yeah. Attractive women but then again a lot of attractive women exist in the real world and to call them oppressive is just stupid. Now I get that women in games are designed and scripted and all those things people are not but still a hot women in power is hardly sexist while any woman ugly or drop dead gorgeous used for motives that make them an object is. Some women will willingly and gladly put on skimpy and in the Anita Sarkeesian veil of feminism are sexist just because they want to even Anita Sarkeesian does it to an extent is kind of stupid not to when in the public eye. Women and men alike want to be attractive, no one wants to be a slave, no one wants their action controlled. In the end even the objections to appearance come to people want me to dress or be as thin as (X) and at their core involve changing how you act as a person you want to dress this way but that is not traditionally attractive so you don't you think women in media look to damn thin on average so you adjust you actions to be thinner. Actions are not only louder than words they are louder than appearance.

 

[Coakle]

On the other side of the fence you have female characters whose appearances are for all intentions natural and for the world, but whose roles and actions aren't great role model material.

Now alternative to the former examples (no biases here). These example dress more appropriately for their universes, but could be argued that their roles are detrimental to female characters as a whole.

OK. This is kinda a pet peeve of mine that seems to happen whenever "good" female characters are discussed. A female character is not "bad" because she doesn't act as a role-model.

I am currently reading "No Longer Human" by Osamu Dazai. The main character, Oba Yozo, is not role model material. He is the Anti-Role Model. He is also very valuable. Yozo shows a more pathetic, isolated, and cowardly side of a human that is simultaneously repulsive and captivating. Y'know how harem leads are awful people? Oba Yozo is the deconstruction of harem leads before those guys even existed. Awesome.

This comparison is not entirely fair. Young girls have precious few role-models in fiction, so there are different expectations when a woman character debuts. If most male protagonists were Yozo, I would be pretty pissed. I dunno. It's just rough when a compelling character gets shunned because they are not "good" for female characters as a whole.

OT: I would vote skimpy outfits are more damaging.

Spoiler: Reasons

A character with no agency can still be well written. Granted, most of the time this should be a red flag but as long as her current situation is explained or understandable, a character can lose control over their own lives and remain well-written.

Anne Karenina, near the end, becomes completely dependent on her lover, Alexei, after choosing to divorce her old husband. See, Russian high society, her social club, rejects her because consorting with an adulteress would call into question their own character. Her own son rejects her because he was encouraged to think she betrayed his trust.

These events, understandably, wrecked her self-confidence. She couldn't approve of herself, so she became completely financially and emotionally dependent on Alexei. She could only wait for Alexei to save her from her prison. Anne didn't stop being an extremely well-written character once she lost her freedom.


A character in a skimpy outfit, on the other hand, tends to send a specific message. No matter your ideals, bravery, or competence people will leer at you and the key to achieving your goals is to accept this. That you are somehow weaker or lesser, if you feel uncomfortable when you have no control over how people see you.

This has potential to be more annoying because skimpy outfits are often given to characters who are created to act as role models. Ack. I hate condemning a character based on a single criteria. I can think of a couple people that are better, more interesting characters because they are attempting to imitate a certain style with their outfits.

TLDR:
Skimpy outfits are often given to Characters that are meant to be Role-Models. This is bad.
A Lack of Agency Character tends to be in a more vague role. There's less overt pressure to emulate them. This is less bad.

 

[JimB]

Hard to say. Actions ought to matter more than appearance, but more people will see the character's appearance than play the game to watch her actions. I guess I'll go with appearance, since it tends to be shorthand for the character's personality and actions anyway.

 

[MysticSlayer]

It really should be taken on a case-by-case basis, and even whether or not "bad dress" or "weak actions" are bad can change on that case-by-case. A character can wear skimpy clothing, but if it fits the world and/or fits the character and her purpose, then it really doesn't seem that bad. A character may possess a lack of agency, but she could be so well-written that it is perfectly understandable and provides some very good social commentary, possibly even about the sexism ingrained in a culture.

Ultimately, the work should be judged on what it is, not on some "standard" that may or may not be good for judging that work.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

A character in a skimpy outfit, on the other hand, tends to send a specific message. No matter your ideals, bravery, or competence people will leer at you and the key to achieving your goals is to accept this.

This doesn't make much sense to me at all. Surely an idealistic, brave and competent person knows that a key to achieving their goals is to not give a toss what anyone thinks of how they express themselves?

I'm a feminist and I want more diverse and nuanced portrayals of female characters, but what they wear is ultimately only one part of what 'message' they're sending. (and putting my devil's advocate hat on for a sec; there's also the case to be made that no artist needs to think about what 'message' they're sending in the first place. but that's another debate)

And as for the poll: I'm not going to pick one or t'other, as not much is achieved by breaking down such a complex issue into such narrow criteria. The character's intentions/role/relevance of agency, their design, the contexts of the created/fictional world, and the products likely target demographics should all be considered.

 

[JimB]

Surely an idealistic, brave and competent person knows that a key to achieving their goals is to not give a toss what anyone thinks of how they express themselves?

I tend to agree with this argument when talking about real people, but with fictional characters I don't think it holds water. Bayonetta, for instance, is not a person and cannot express herself because she has no self to express. Someone else is making that expression for her, and given how often the argument is made that corporations are required to sell sex because that is what the market wants, I don't think we can fairly assume a female character's appearance as an expression of her sexuality is intended to make a comment about the character rather than to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

 

[BlumiereBleck]

Actions and behavior are worse. Role doesn't matter so much. Appearance means nothing so long as their actions are good. Kill la Kill proves this. You could be as scandalously clad as possible but it's your actions that define you.

Spoiler: Kill La Kill

 

[Mikeyfell]

Samus (Other M)

Spoiler: Samus in Other M

Spoiler: Samus in every other Metroid game

Are you sure you didn't mistype?

Either way I can hardly believe this is a real thing. Doesn't it all come down to whether or not you judge a character based on their appearance? I wouldn't judge someone based on how they look (Just like in real life...)

If someone behaves like a blithering, codependent, daddy-issue laden moron like Samus from Other M I'd judge them for that.

But if I meet a smart, cautious, sympathetic strong woman like

Spoiler: Fyuria

I'm not going to be like "Oh, she's wearing a belt around her tits instead of a shirt, fuck her."

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

Bayonetta, for instance, is not a person and cannot express herself because she has no self to express. Someone else is making that expression for her, and given how often the argument is made that corporations are required to sell sex because that is what the market wants, I don't think we can fairly assume a female character's appearance as an expression of her sexuality is intended to make a comment about the character rather than to try to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

To various degrees we all try to create and project an identity anyway, so there is no 'true', immutable Self/identity cordoned off from our own and other peoples influence. Someone may dress or act in a certain way in the attempt to fulfil a certain idealised identity, but ultimately experience dissonance when they begin to realise 'they' don't quite fit their own creation/projection. Real or imagined, it's foolish to place too much importance on aesthetics alone. But I digress...

My response was largely aimed at the peculiar notion that flirty designs tend to fundamentally reflect negatively on a characters agency and fidelity, and that a design should conform to some arbitrary idea of a 'message'. An objectified/sexist design is not an objective thing that exists in a vacuum - it's defined by the context of the work, and then assimilated and interpreted (sometimes matching up to creators vision, other times not) by players/observers who have their own set of associations to the imagery and themes.

Surely tone and intent defines whether a character's 'self' is dissonant at all. Cammy White fits SF, Elizabeth fits BioShock Infinite.

As for designs appealing to the lowest common denominator? It's not just the low-brow stuff like Dead Or Alive that are technically exploitative. Perceptions of beauty are skewed across the board, from pulpy fighters to RPG's. Pop culture populates its worlds and stories with visually appealing individuals. Kasumi may be designed to be 'sexy' to teenage boys and young men, but Elizabeth, Alyx Vance, and even Zoey from L4D were designed to be visually pleasing. Their looks, and our perceptions of beauty, are still being used.

I accept I'm stretching this a little... but the point is almost all art/pop culture idealises - and thus exploits - in some way. Principally, it's perhaps not just the obvious examples which we should be questioning.

 

[carnex]

sorry, my bad with first post

Anyway, first I have to say NO to any censorship.

And than, I have to say as far as I see it, its matter of context. Most of examples presented are simply because of what sells. Beyonce has good enough voice to sell her music based on only that but she dresses and acts extremely provocatively because that sells. Females are represented mostly as extreme sex symbols, passive or ultra aggressive because it sells.

Plus, during summer seeing ultra skimpy outfits in public ir regular occurance. Dime-a-dozen.

 

[verdant monkai]

Boring character appearance can be overcome by interesting behaviour/personality. Although appearance is very important.

BUT WAIT!
Are we comparing these perceived negative things to our concept of an ideal woman? Like someone who looks very average, is never caught in anything less than two layers of clothing and is strong willed and doesn't rely on any men?

I'd say skimpy clothing and uselessness is only a problem if all the women in the game world have both. People are all different, and to have believable women characters they all need to be different. Some can be strong and wear modest clothes, some can be weak and wear revealing clothes, and others can be strong and wear revealing clothes and so on. It should be the same with men you need a diverse array. I honestly think there's nothing wrong with a bit of nudity in games male or female. Sometimes I just unequip everything and let the lighting effects play of my chiselled abs, jaw and nipples.

 

[geK0]

I tend to disagree that sexism in videogames is really even THAT much of an issue

There are plenty of strong female characters in games, there has been in past games and there probably will be in future games. I'll just throw a bunch of names of strong female villains and protagonists who appear in some of the games I've played.

The issue is more that the females are outnumbered by their male counterparts, but so many people in these threads make it sound as if you'd be hard pressed to find a capable female character in any game.

Zelda (Zelda, obviously):
I know what you're thinking "such distress so damsel much sexism wow" , but no, Zelda plays a very active role in many Zelda games (OOT comes to mind). Zelda turns herself into a bad ass ninja for crying out loud! Without Zelda's guidance, Link wouldn't have a damn clue how to even enter half the temples and he wouldn't have gotten the light arrows which were essential to defeating Ganon. The light arrows are Zelda's power! they worked together to beat Ganon! Zelda even saved Link from being crushed under the rubble of Ganon's castle.

Various Pokemon Characters:
There are numerous female gym leaders in pokemon, some of which were the hardest(in my opinion) to beat (DAMN YOU WHITNEY AND YOUR UNSTOPPABLE MILTANK!!!) Hell, three of the champions were female; The most competent champion of all (in terms of team build) was Cynthia.

Meryl (Metal Gear solid):
A competent and super buff (check out the wedding scene in mgs4) female soldier.

Dixie Kong (Donkey Kong Country):
Traveled alongside Diddy Kong as an equal.

Various Mortal Kombat characters:
Hyper sexualized yes, but just as capable as any of the male characters.

Lara Croft (tomb raider):
Haven't played the game, but this one is mentioned often in threads like this.

Various Final Fantasy Characters (using examples from 10 because I remember them best):
somewhat sexualized but to a lesser degree than a lot of other games (who cares, are we fucking Mennonites or something?)
you have users of powerful magic (lulu, Yuna), girls who are very capable with a sword (Paine), girls who know their way around a machine and are capable of using technology that other characters can't (Rikku), a high ranking member of a tyrannical religious organization (Yunalesca). Then there's the main antagonist in FF8 (which I haven't played) who looks pretty bad ass, the main antagonist in 9 is a Matriarch, one of the main protagonists in 12 was a fallen princess turned rebel trying to take back her homeland.

Warcraft:

Janna, Sylvanas, Tyrande, Alexstrasza

Tronne Bonne/Roll (Mega Man Legends):
Tronne is Probably the only competent member of the Bonne family pirates.
Roll is a capable mechanic who maintains and upgrades Mega Man (he's a robot for those of you who don't know)

Dragon Age:
You've got a few powerful spellcasters and a bisexual thief. Morrigan is probably the most useful of all your characters.

none of them are front liners though, barring Morrigan in her animal forms : \


Killzone:
I forget the person's name, but Killzone (the first one) had a pretty kick ass stealthy female character with a precise scoped sub machine gun which nobody in story mode had access to other than her.


But I'm slightly off topic here....


OT:
I think the character's role is much more important than their appearance. Especially considering that a lot of the time, the appearance of the characters is heavily influenced by marketing departments which the writers have little control over.

 

[Coakle]

Surely an idealistic, brave and competent person knows that a key to achieving their goals is to not give a toss what anyone thinks of how they express themselves?

I never understood this line of thinking.

How does a person hope to achieve anything if they don't care how other people see them? It is a very human, admirable thing for a person to influence, communicate who they are and what they stand for. Trying to maintain control over the image that they project to other people does not mean a person is insecure or cowardly. It is justified to feel uncomfortable and fight people who slander them.

It's just another form of power that a person has over their social world. Demanding that a person ignores how people feel about them takes away that power from them.

I agree that a character can't be dismissed based on what they wear. I was just thinking how Kill la Kill phrased the "appearances are inconsequential and you are vain/weaker/ordinary because you care about it" line of thinking.

TLDR: The insinuation that caring about your image is for weaklings just rubs me the wrong way.


Edit:Sorry I didn't see you most recent post. "The peculiar notion that flirty designs tend to fundamentally reflect negatively on a characters ."

 

[solemnwar]

Dragon Age:
You've got a few powerful spellcasters and a bisexual thief. Morgana is probably the most useful of all your characters.

none of them are front liners though, barring Morgana in her animal forms : \

Morrigan. Her name is Morrigan. Not Morgana. Morrigan. Morrigan.
[sub]Sorry this happens so often it's become a pet peeve of mine.[/sub]

 

[geK0]

Dragon Age:
You've got a few powerful spellcasters and a bisexual thief. Morgana is probably the most useful of all your characters.

none of them are front liners though, barring Morgana in her animal forms : \

Morrigan. Her name is Morrigan. Not Morgana. Morrigan. Morrigan.
[sub]Sorry this happens so often it's become a pet peeve of mine.[/sub]

My bad, It's been a few years since I've played the game haha