Apologies for the dramatic title, but yesterday was Halloween, and the topic for today is horror.
A piece of mine, “Women Monsters and Monstrous Women: Representing the Feminine in Survival Horror”, went up today at The Escapist, as part of an entire Girl Power issue dedicated to, well, women and games. I highly suggest you check it out - the issue itself, that is. I know that’s how I plan on spending my morning.
As some of you may know, women monsters in games - and the larger concept of the horrible female - is something of a favorite topic for me, so I’m quite glad to have a few words out there. If you’re interested in other such wonderful-ness outside the medium of game, I recommend Heart of Darkness, or “Ghost in the Shell 2″. Yup, women sure are scary.
November 1st, 2005 at 10:11 am
I am curious to hear your reaction to my piece in The Escapist. I have found, to my consternation, that most feminists regard evolutionary psychology as nothing more than intellectualized male chauvinism. I view it as providing liberating insights into the human condition.
What’s your take?
November 1st, 2005 at 11:16 am
As much I would hate to side with tradional feminists, I admit I’m mostly against the line of thinking in your piece - in that I think it (like many intelligent works before it) relies too heavily on evolutionary psychology, and all but ignores the complex social conditions that shape our expectations of gender - that can in fact alter our behaviors and tastes beyond the influence of genetics.
Evolution is an interesting, and important, place to start; it has obviously profoundly influenced our physical and mental form, and the gender tendencies dictated by that form. Yet, in explaining modern tendencies, I believe evolution is only the spring board, and culture the larger, determining factor. You have to keep in mind that, though we still possess these Darwinian bodies, we have in many ways moved beyond our physical use value. We create art; we are human. In other words, we have moved past the mere science of our beings, past utility, past cause and effect - into a world of choice.
Understanding our physical anatomy (something that takes thousands of years to change) through evolution makes sense. Determining our social and personal preferences (which can alter in decades, years, months) does not. Again, it’s not a bad place to start - but to move directly from hunter/gatherer instincts to why women like, let’s say, the Sims is reductive and, in my opinion, unproductive.
Plus, of course, it reinforces a structure of male power. Science claims to have no favorites; it pretends it’s stating the facts. But the mentality with which we’ve approached science is heavily steeped in our social values - one’s derived from a male-dominated culture.
Perhaps, locked away in solitude, men and women would develop soley according to evolutionary psychology (though, who knows, it may be a psychology different from the one we think we understand). But here in real life, things are so much more complicated. On the surface, boys like guns, girls like match-making - and boys like girls, and girls like boys (another important trait in terms of evolutionary). In actuality, we exist on a spectrum, in terms of sexuality and gender. If this doesn’t seem present in everyday life, it is because we have repressed our continuum, because we feel safer, more in control, when things are black and white, one thing or another, scientifically explained: like evolutionary psychology.
None of which is meant to sound hostile or disrespectful. But you brought it up, and it is an issue I feel strongly about. I’m always one for a good fight :-).
November 1st, 2005 at 11:50 am
OK, let’s see if we can’t put our fingers on the underlying fundamental points of disagreement. I do not seek to debate you here; my goal is to identify exactly why this difference of opinion exists, as I have always been bewildered by the strong rejection of evolutionary psychology by so many feminists.
There seem to be two core concepts that underly your opinions here:
1. Modern humans are too complicated to be understood by evolutionary psychology.
2. Evolutionary psychology is intrinsically sexist.
I assume that my shortened versions of your extensive explanations are somewhat unfair in generalizing, so if they are misleading, please correct me. But let me address these two concepts.
1. I agree that the human brain is the most complicated phenomenon known. But complexity does not obviate analysis. You seem to be denying the entire science of psychology. I doubt that is your true meaning, so let me refine my point. You are not taking the position that the human mind lies beyond all scientific analysis; you are instead positing that some aspects of human behavior escape scientific analysis. You are drawing a line between that which can be understood scientifically and that which cannot be so understood. My challenge is, can you justify drawing the line as you have? Can you show that your line is not arbitrarily drawn?
Allow me to suggest a model for how scientific analysis can be applied to human behavior. In my essay, I posited a three-layered pyramid with physical factors at the bottom, genetic factors in the middle, and cultural factors on top. I would add a fourth layer of individual experience on top of the cultural factors. Thus, the behavior of any individual is dictated by all four factors. The behavior of any group is dictated by only the three factors. I maintain that all three factors control behavior; you seem to be saying that only the top layer controls behavior. Is this really your position?
2. I do not understand the claim of sexism in evolutionary psychology. Surely the works of such eminent scientists as Sara Blaffer-Hrdy and Leda Cosmides cannot be considered sexist. (there’s an excellent primer by Dr. Cosmides on evo psych at http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/primer.html ).
But perhaps there is some result or conclusion in evo psych that you find intrinsically demeaning to women. Can you make me aware of this? For example, do you object to the findings about the female pelvis and its impact on female bipedalism?
November 1st, 2005 at 1:02 pm
I was following some breadcrumbs and happened on your site. ;) I really enjoyed your article and took particular interest in female villains aka monsters. I’ve always tended toward the villainess role myself.
I thought I’d point out that in movies it wasn’t until recent years that we’ve seen a female villain killed by a male. Prior they either were misunderstood and rehabilitated, were killed by some accident or self inflicted idiocy or were in the extreme killed by another woman. The idea being (I’m assuming) that killing a female directly was very very bad.
For Chris, I really enjoyed your piece I think most of all. I think you made it very clear that you were oversimplifying and really if we boil it down to the basics, you’re not wrong. Of course if we add in all the complexities we still can’t really say where people fall in categorically. I’ve always liked shooters and rts’ myself along with puzzles and political intrigue.
We also see strong women in history that used those very social skills they developed to manipulate powerful men as well (See Cleopatra as one) or even Joan of Arc who while she was a fighter it was her ability to convince others of what she stood for that gave her so much power.
I have always considered myself a feminist. Not a feminazi or extreme. I believe that there is nothing wrong with women and men choosing the roles that fit them best as a person over what roles are defined for them by the gender however. Gender helps shape strengths but what a person does from there to overcome percieved weaknesses or real weaknesses is up to them.
Also of a slightly unrelated note, my hips were fine for carrying children, the pelvis is a bit small. Without the aid of a hospital I would have lost both of my children though I managed to escape cesarean outright. ;)
November 1st, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Oops.. put in my site address wrong in my response just fyi in case you feel the need to hunt me down to my lair. ;)
November 1st, 2005 at 1:55 pm
I like boobies. I buy things with boobies.
November 1st, 2005 at 2:40 pm
I take issue with your assertion that men think that women who play games are monsters. I am male, and have several male game-playing friends who all think that gamer girls are really cool.
I also thought your article appeared to look for the negative interpretation of any appearance of female roles in games. To conclude that women should embrace the role of monsters only seems absurd since it excludes female protagonists from appearing in games and surely to be so excluded would (and should) be construed as sexist.
How about suggesting constructive ways in which the gaming industry could include women in a way that would appeal to women and not be sexist?
November 1st, 2005 at 3:01 pm
Wow, it’s an escapist contributer party in here. Hi, Danielle. Interesting point about female villains in movies - although, I would claim, we’ve been killing women for years: in the form of effeminate men (For a number of complex, social reasons). Just look at Disney’s movies. The bad guys, I mean the real bad guys, aren’t macho men, they’re eerily woman-ish. Not that Disney is the end all be all, but it certainly does say a lot about American culture.
Chris, let me clarify on some things, because I can tell from your summary that I wasn’t explaining myself right…
1. Modern humans are too complicated to be understood by evolutionary psychology.
In a way, yes. Still, the main problem here is the world “understand”. I’m not saying that evolutionary psychology doesn’t offer us certain insights into human behavior. I’m saying that it’s this need to “understand”, to compartmentalize through science, that - like empirical thinking itself - is endlessly reductive.
You are not taking the position that the human mind lies beyond all scientific analysis; you are instead positing that some aspects of human behavior escape scientific analysis.
Again, it’s this idea that there is a definite known, and therefore an unknown - the scientific and the (perhaps) mystical - that reduces the situation to a useless black and white. All things may not be explainable by evolutionary theory. That doesn’t mean their unexplainable.
Science insists, there is a system. I agree. But it’s an anti-systematic system. It’s like quantum physics. You think you know and you think you can explain, but at the heart of things there’s chaos, and to think that any system can explain that is innane. People too are like that.
I maintain that all three factors control behavior; you seem to be saying that only the top layer controls behavior.
No, I’m saying, as are you, that the three (if not more) are simultaneous. But I’m also saying that to alienate one and use it on its own as an explaination, even for something as brief as an article, is misleading and short-sighted. Also, your image of the “pyramid”, in my opinion, is off. It implies that the largest influence on human behavior is evolutionary, and that culture holds the smallest position. Visually these simultaneous influences into something quantitative is, again, counterproductive. If I had to pick a shape though, I would suggest a complete inversion, a reverse pyramid - since physical and genetic nature are always limited (You are born with a certain amount of innate coding, which cannot increase.). However, the influence of culture and of your personal experience are permenantly growing, perhaps outweighing the inborn.
2. Evolutionary psychology is intrinsically sexist.
I do not mean to imply that facts, like the differing shape of the female pelvis, are in and of themselves sexist. I mean - on the one hand - that the conclusion we draw from them are male-oriented, and derive from a culture of male power. For example, women are genetically predisposed, in theory, to stay at home with children while men go and procure food. We say, This is science, this can’t be denied. But what can be denied is the meaning we imply. We see: Women weak; men strong. But what determines strength? What determines power? Who is to say in another culture and another ideology, for example, that women are not dominant because men serve them? Science is not objective, because it is human. For us to see science, we must perceive it through our slanted vision.
The other, larger issue at hand, is the bias of science itself (at least as it exists in our Western, post-enlightenment culture). Not a bias toward men or toward women per se, but a bias in attempting to establish a specific, overriding order to the world (in this case to gender), and demanding absolute truth. This, in turn, becomes sexist in a male regime, where maintaining order means maintaining male power. Whether or not there are female scientists, science, in this form, can be codified as male and male-serving.
The problem is, this isn’t just a matter of gender, it’s a matter of how you see the world. I fear I’m not explaining myself very well. Blake does it better (though, then again, he hasn’t had the easiest time of being understood either):
“Now I a fourfold vision see
And a fourfold vision is given to me
Tis fourfold in my supreme delight
And three fold in soft Beulahs night
And twofold Always. May God us keep
From Single vision & Newtons sleep”
It’s that single vision (whatever single vision it may be) that just won’t do. Science as we know it happens to be an art that insists on single vision - it’s vision.
As for why it’s “feminists” who have been most frequently been your opponents in regards to evolutionary psychology: first, they sense a false reinforcement of the male structure of power, whether or not they explore the philosophical reasons behind it. Women, as the “submissives” in our culture, have a vested interest in “fourfold vision” - in that it brings change from the empirical, stale, restrictive understanding of life and gender that surrounds us.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:10 pm
Peter, I’m not saying that you, on an individual level, think women who play games are literally monsters. I’m saying that we (women gamers, that is) a social entity fill a role that in many ways parallels that of the monster.
You say I am looking for the negative side of female representation. I don’t believe it’s quite so simple. There’s isn’t a negative and a positive. There are roles, and there are underlying problems. Would simply excluding female protagonists, as you say, be sexist (in the traditional sense of the word): of course. But gender representation in games as we know it is wholly sexist. What I’m suggesting we do is invert the implications of the male system to our own empowerment.
If you’d like to suggest a non-sexist model for the future, I’m all ears. Personally, I feel we’ve been looking for a “constructive” model of femininity to place within the male system of gaming for years. We don’t need to struggle endlessly to get warm, fuzzy, equal representation on someone else’s terf. We need to claim our own place, outside of the existing system of “good” and “bad”.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:24 pm
Bonnie: I understand that you use ‘monster’ metaphorically. My point is that ‘monster’ has a clear negative connotation. I would say that gamer girls are a treasure, not social freaks. I would contend that calling them ‘monsters’ leads one to the latter interpretation, not the former.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:28 pm
I definetly didn’t see her saying women gamers were monsters meaning men saw us as such. I think the meaning was more along the lines that it’s not seen as a common thing as of yet though it’s more common that what many percieve.
As for effeminate men in movies standing in for women, I can see your point though I think it is a bit extreme to say they stand in for women. I’ve never liked particularly effeminate men nor weak women in need of rescuing however. ;) Does that make me bias against my own gender? Or does that mean I’m just drawn to stronger characters that I can identify with or hope to emulate?
An example of a female character I can’t stand is Gwenivere. I always saw her as wishy washy and while I understand to a good degree why she is the way she is, I cringed at other more crucial times when she needed to show backbone and yet showed none.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:29 pm
Ah, such an important point… really. The word “monster” has immense, negative connotations. That’s exactly why I love it. Seriously though, it’s a perfect word to capture the power of stepping outside of the bounds of accepted society. On the one hand, it forces you to redefine an accepted term. On another, it allows you to claims the power (that is, the power of fear, of disgust) that comes with such a word.
You say, girls gamers are treasures, not social freaks. I say, girl gamers are social freaks, and therefore they are treasures.
November 1st, 2005 at 3:36 pm
Danielle, you’re right that it’s taking it far to call Disney’s villains, by association women. Really, it’s more complicated - in they’re villains because they defy gender definition.
As for effeminate men, well, you’ve come to wrong place :-). I am a totally sucker for a man in eyeliner. I was literally a puddle on the floor for two weeks after seeing “Velvet Goldmine”. Oscar Wilde is my hero.
Also, as an Arthorian geek, I hear your gripes about Jenny. Oh, she’s so great, oh she’s so beautiful, everyone loves her - but she has no spine and she brings about hell. But look at someone like Morgan Le Faye. God, there’s a woman to admire. Besides, in the end, Jenny is barren. Morgan, on the other hand, produces an heir - and a damn important one. Whose the real woman here?
November 1st, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Bonnie, your piece on the construction of woman as other was very nice, one of the storyworlds I plan to build will be a contemporary adaptation of Beowulf involving how society constructs boys as monsters, so your thoughts provided a nice mirror.
Chris, as always I hold the utmost repespect for you and enjoyed the article, though you’ve alreadly made most of the points in other essays on your site. Bonnie does have a point to the effect that while evo psyche is may not be intrinsically sexist, its implications certainly can be construed that way. I would like to add to that effect that evo psyche is not he only evolutionary model of human behavior, sociobiology and the yet immature meme theory are both very useful for juxtaposition. I would say that evo psyche describes the interaction between the physical and genetic aspects of the human, while sociobiology describes the interaction between the genetic and the cultural, and the meme theory describes the interaction between the culture and the individual. This is of course a gross oversimplification, but that seems to be the theme today so no worries. Most of the cultural studies work on behalf of feminism and post-feminism indirectly borrows methods of analysis from the meme theory and sociobiology, which compare to evo psyche are more top-down ways of judging people. I recommend Susan Blackmore’s book “The Meme Machine” for a nice overview of three perspectives. Consequentely Bonnie’s urge for non-dualistic perspectives is key to the meme theory, which is my personal favorite. Check my blog, www.kingludic.blogspot.com for a nice post on making games that appeal to both genders.
BTW, if you don’t believe that Evolutionary Psychology can be interpreted as sexist, hear my tale. About a month ago I got fired from a crappy part-time job at Sbarro for what was at first “sexual harrassment” and ended up as “creating a hostile work environment”. My transgression? Explaining evolutionary psychology’s selection pressure for bigger brains in terms of male infidelity and social reasoning. Yes, this actually happened and was not an experimental sitcom. After the first transgression I went and apologized to the first girl I offended, explaining that while human evolution was marred by male manipulation of women, things have indeed changed and equality is possible. She was smiling, I figured I made things right. The next day they tell me I’m fired because another girl overheard the conversation and interpreted as a lecture on male dominance. Science may or may not have a sexism ingrained into its institutions, but it definetly can be politically incorrect to the point of termination of employment. On the other hand, being able to tell the story makes it all worth it in my book ;)
November 1st, 2005 at 4:12 pm
You said Beowulf. You have my attention. I happen to love that story and think I still have it in the original old english somewhere in part in a print out from high school. I also have it in book form complete.
Have you ever read the Sci-Fi books Legacy of Herot and Grendel’s Children (I think it’s called). Really not much to do with the original and yet so relative at the same time.
I agree that Morgan was by far the better woman. ;) Although I loved the interpretation better in Mists of Avalon. I also like a man who is a man and yet not afraid of a strong woman. ;)
November 1st, 2005 at 4:19 pm
That’s Legacy of Heorot. I mispelled not them. ;)
November 1st, 2005 at 4:41 pm
I haven’t read the sci-fi interpretations, mine is more contemporary, involving middle-school kids. The Beowulf character is a kid named Pack who just moved to the school (in the Cheasapeak area) and gets along with the cool kids. Grendal is a disgruntled jewish kid whose alienation is compounded by violent videogames, eventaully he starts killing cool kids at parties. I want to use the Doom engine as a front-end for certain segments, one being a deathmatch between Pack and Grendal, the other being the actual confrontation. I’m trying to get funding with the MTV Digital Incubator project, but right now I’m trying to get a team together. Scratchware, way of the future.
Morgan le Fay is a good example of a montrousized female as in Bonnie’s column. Theres this whole pagan thing, this dionysian essence, that has been repressed for the past 2000 years until about fourty years ago. Women are inherently mysterious to men, Morgan is a hyperbole of that; but as I say in my blog post, uncertainty is underlies all challenge, and challenge is what its all about.
BTW Sachant, your article was also an interesting look at an underepresented perspective.
November 1st, 2005 at 4:46 pm
Thanks Patrick.
I cringe slightly at the use of violent games to spur the antagonist in your story to commit crimes. I’m always wary of anything that perpetuates a stereotype that violent games beget violent people but I’m sure your intent is to show that it’s an outlet only of course. ;)
November 1st, 2005 at 5:26 pm
Bonnie, I am going to interpret your remarks to indicate a general inhospitability to science or, as you might prefer to think of it, reductionism. I realize that you will object to such a strong imputation on my part, but reading between the lines, that’s what I think I’m seeing. I make this as an observation, not an accusation. To some extent, this is a matter of taste. Moreover, this subject is far too large for us to explore here. Me, I’m rationalist to the core, and I consider rationalism to be the only hope our species has for survival. But I respect your sentiments.
A side comment on Guenevere versus Morgan le Faye: Yes, that Guenevere character is almost saccharine, but remember that she is the creation of the French troubadors, filtered through the Victorians. She is a great expression of womanhood as perceived in those cultures. She’s not a good fit to our culture. You might want to look at a completely different character: Gwenhwyvar, wife of Arthur in the older Celtic versions. The Celtic notions of feminity are — IN SOME WAYS!!! — more compatible with modern tastes. For example, one of the Celtic archetypes is the woman warrior who takes the young man under her wing and teaches him the ways of manhood. Only an apprenticeship under her can help the man reach true manhood.
November 1st, 2005 at 5:31 pm
For really hot Beowulf action, do check out John Gardner’s Grendel. Beyond being an excellent example of post-modern literature, it will knock the socks out of you. I read it three years ago and it’s still possessing my body.
November 1st, 2005 at 5:37 pm
Indeed, Chris, this is a tiny forum for a giant idea. Probably best to put it to rest :-). Thanks for talking it through with me though.
And, true, Guenevere as we know her isn’t our construction (though we do share much in common with the Victorians) - however, there’s a reason why the Arthurian legend, and figures like Jenny, have become so popular again in modern culture. They must strike some chord with us. I’d loved to check out Gwenhwyvar, though. She appear, I believe, in the Mabinogean, but not in the context you mention. Which text are you referring to?
November 1st, 2005 at 5:56 pm
I liked their interpretation of her in the latest movie Arthur which was suppossed to have been based on more of the ‘reality’ of who he was versus the fluffed up version. It it, Gwen is an archer and warrior. I thought I was going to hate it but instead ended up loving her strength.
Also, I’d point out I come from a very Matriarchal family myself so can see why many people men and women alike are bristling at your article Chris. I guess I don’t take it to heart the same as some others are. I found it interesting for the sake of itself and didn’t see it as telling me what role I should fill or that game devs should only cater to one aspect of female nature. I also used to watch Soaps up until I was a teenager. I can’t stand them anymore. I think their core entertainment value was waiting to see who they killed off next and in what way and then how they would miraculously be ressurected later. ;) There’s one character in a soap I watched that I swear was killed at least six times. Amazingly she looked better than ever last I saw her. ;)
November 1st, 2005 at 6:33 pm
Gwenhwyvar does not appear in any of the classic versions of the tales, and her appearance in the Mabinogeon is contaminated with the French character. Rather, she is interpolated by comparison with similar characters playing similar roles in the older Irish and Breton tales. I’d recommend Peter Berresford Ellis, “Celtic Women” for a thorough review of all the many permutations.
The original Celtic versions of the tales are pretty hard to get a handle on, but in those few places where we can get a solid grip on them, we see something far deeper and more powerful than the Frenchified versions we now have. The Frenchified versions provided the basis for a Walt Disney cartoon, a Mark Twain satire, and a Broadway romance, but the original Celtic versions could not have been treated in that fashion.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:24 am
Hi Bonnie,
Firstly I would like to say that I believe that more effort should be spend on making games that are actually interesting to women. That said I must admit that I have some issues with your views on females as monsters in games and the portrayal of female characters. It feels as if you are saying that no matter how a game depicts women, it is a sexist portrayal. I would agree that *most* games do have a sexist slant on female representation. As Sheri Graner-Ray would say they are “hyper-sexualized”. This does not mean that every representation in every game is sexist. I do not believe that many men think of playing a female character as controlling a woman. It is also slightly offensive to be told that I must be thinking in a particular way just because I am a man. Surely if woman are allowed to operate in male domains and act like men, I can think and act like a woman!
Games have relatively few female monsters when compared to classical Greek mythology, with such notables as the Sirens, Harpies, Gorgons, Sphinx, etc. I agree that there is an interesting discussion to be had about women as monsters, but I think that you take some of your musings too far.
Your claim the female game players would be considered monstrosities by men is also fairly extreme. If all it takes to be a monster is participating in the other genders stereotyped area, then I must be a monster. I had an after-school job selling make-up (Nutrimetics) door to door. Certainly I was stepping outside my gender stereotype but most women I have talked to don’t mind the idea that I can discuss cleansing, toning, foundation, concealer, eyeliner….. or do their makeup for them. I am even doing the makeup for my partner’s sister’s wedding. It’s odd, but it’s hardly monstrous. The negative connotations of the word monster tend to taint any attempt to use the word metaphorically. Girls who play game are not that odd anymore, given that most girls under the age of 20 have played computer games.
On the issue of the depiction of women and men. Short, weak, effeminate men are generally not considered attractive. Most, and note I use the term most, women are attracted to power. This can be financial, physical, intellectual, whatever so long as there is the perception of power. Men would seem to be more physically focussed, and are attracted, in general, to beauty, youth and fertility. Men and women in games tend to fit these stereotypes, which is not uncommon in any form of storytelling. Stereotypes convey a lot of information quickly, that is partly why we use them. They are also used for objects as well as people. We have a stereotype for an Italian meal for example. Stereotypes assist communication, you might not like the stereotype but that is how they are used. Some games will break stereotypes, but it is society as a whole that must continue it slow progression to less specific gender stereotypes before games no longer use the classic strong man and fertile woman images.
As a New Zealander I may have a slightly different cultural view on strong women. In New Zealand we have a number of strong females in leadership roles. In fact almost all of the political leadership is from women in New Zealand:
Head of State: Queen Elizabeth II
Prime Minester: Helen Clark (1999-present) , and before that Jenny Shipley(1997-1999)
Governor General(Queens representative): Silvia Cartwright
The Speaker of the House or Representative: Margaret Anne Wilson
Head of the Judiciary: Dame Sian Elias
CEO Telecom (NZ’s largest company): Theresa Gattung
The top five political roles are all women. Admittedly our parliament is only 32% female, but that is better than the US with only 15%. We also happen to be the first country to give women the vote, and we have the world’s 1st transsexual Member of Parliament. Perhaps this gives us a slightly different take on strong women in society. Western culture is not just American culture.
Oh, and on the eyeliner comment, here in New Zealand where our national sport is Rugby Union (a contact sport a bit like gridiron without the padding or helmets) one of the All Blacks (our national team) played a game for his province wearing eyeliner. This caused quite a stir but it certainly did make people think about gender roles. http://www.rugbyheaven.smh.com.au/articles/2004/11/04/1099547315402.html
Simon
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:37 am
lol I’m betting it will be a long while before we have a female president. I envy countries that put women into positions of power and give them the same sort of trust and expectations as they would a man with that power. Someday perhaps we’ll see it. I won’t say more on politics because I’ll probably begin frothing at the mouth or something.
I guess I read Bonnie’s article also as a slight exaggeration to make a point such as men playing a female character because they are nice to look at. There are many men that play that way. There are many others that just like playing female characters as well.
I also liked Tomb Raider because it was the first female heroine I had seen in games. While she wasn’t perfect and had breasts that defied all gravity, I thought she was a powerful character in that she was smart and athletic and was exploring dangerous places all on her own.
Again though, I don’t think monster was meant as ‘monstrous’ or at least I didn’t read it as such. I read it in being rare or little seen and slightly feared by some who see women in the gaming world as anomalies. I’ve seen those reactions before though they are getting rarer depending on the venue. I equated Monster to anomaly.
Who knows. Maybe I was in the right frame of mind when reading the issue that I took everyone’s articles at face value and enjoyed them all for what they are. I’ve found over analyzing intent can take away a lot of that enjoyment. I say this when normally I will tear things to pieces myself. I’m either mellowing as I age or just starting to not take things quite so seriously anymore. lol
November 2nd, 2005 at 10:58 am
joining the escapist party up in here!
I’m curious what kind of academic backgrounds all of you are bringing to the table. A discussion of video games through the respective lenses of evolutionary psychology and what I could only describe as post-modern feminism via literature (?) certainly sounds like something worth continuing in a larger forum.
-pat
November 2nd, 2005 at 12:12 pm
Here’s my resume-
http://www.sachant.com/?page_id=15
I have my own blog I run just for my own entertainment and sometimes I have people manage to stop by. ;)
November 2nd, 2005 at 1:37 pm
Thanks Bonnie, I’ll definetly read Grendal sometime in the next few months. I agree with Mr. McCallum that NZ has a fairly progressive attitude toward sexuality and politics, I would certainly like to live there as soon as is feasible.
I’d like to point out that there isn’t anything intrinsically sexist about Evolutionary Psychology, but reductionism isn’t the only way of looking at things. Reductive thought makes for good software engineering and game balancing, but holistic thinking makes for better writing and game experiences. The think I respect most about Mr. Crawford is that he both an engineer and an artist, but has humbly put his personal artistic aspirations aside in favor of creating a platform for people who are more decidedly holistic in their thinking. An inclusion of viewpoints is generally a good thing. Douglas Hofstader, in his classic “Godel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid”, playfully combines the words “reductionism” and “holism” into “reductholism”. Anyone trying to make games that transcend the traditional audience should become reductholics.
As for Evo Psyche specifically as a means of analyzing our potential markets, its a good lense, and as Crawford’s essay demonstrates it has plenty of insights to lend. However, I think that viewpoint needs to be counterbalanced by sociobiology, and that memetics is the way of the future, as its insights allow a designer to build a game as an adaptive player-centric construct, rather than a static formal system.
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:42 pm
Well Pat, I am a lecturer in Computer Science at the University of Otago in Dunedin, New Zealand. I have played games since I was 8 and programmed since I was 10, 21 year ago. I am currently working on educational usb camera based games for our Kindergarten system. My PhD is in the functional purpose of sleep and dreams in mammals, as shown in connectionist models of memory. I am not going to make many claims about human dreaming as we are all far to emotionally engaged with dream to explain them away with a bit of science.
I am interested in women in gaming and feel that with a change from the male oriented controller for console to the more gender neutral space based control given by things like the eyetoy and singstar type games that we may be able to start to break down some of the stereotypes and barriers. I am particularly interesting in the way 3 4 and 5 year olds view computers and computer games, as many of their attitudes toward their environment are shaped at this stage.
I do not disagree with the idea that there are interesting things to be discussed about the role of female characters in games. I think the discussion of monsters is of particular interest. Our societies are changing rapidly only recently(1979) the US moved away from naming hurricanes with female names, a very powerful and distructive entity.
I know Bonnie is partly stirring and trying to stimulate debate, but I have to agree with Chris that there is a hint of anti scientific analysis in her responses. Unless your ideas have some predictive power, and actually explain what people do, then it is hard to discuss them and see if they are likely to be in any way related to what is actually happening. I support the idea that evol psych helps explain a lot of behaviour in humans. It is just part of the behaviour but it is a contributing factor.
I would also have to disagree that science is about maintaining order. Religion is maintaining order in the face of change. It is not the case that This, in turn, becomes sexist in a male regime, where maintaining order means maintaining male power. A Scientist has to accept that every one of her/his beliefs is probably false. Given that science is constantly advancing by falsification of theories. All a scientist can say is that the theories we currently have are the ones that fit our experience of the world the best.
Oh, and “Godel, Escher, Bach” is one of the texts I have used in my postgrad AI courses, an excellent book.
Simon
November 2nd, 2005 at 2:49 pm
From the article:
“Yet even such seemingly empowered female characters come with ambiguous implications. While their presence does speak to certain pro-gender equality ideals - more representation of capable women in games, more opportunities to play as women - their submissive relationship to interactivity puts them once again at the mercy of male gamers.
Men, as the ones most often holding the controllers, exercise control over playable female characters, redistributing the power balance in favor of the male.”
If there are no problems, you obviously have to create one, and that’s what’s going on this article. Don’t let sanity get in the way of a good feminist tirade; even if you have strong female characters in the game, they’re ultimately just slaves to the chaunivist male player. Yes, the player is controlling the character. Shock. Reading too deeply into things is typically not a good idea, and it certainly isn’t in this case. Why can’t you just accept the fact that some games do have strong, respectable female characters? Why do you have to start making up some completely bizarre and ridiculous theories to explain how, in reality, the dreaded male is still in control and ruining everything? Games are interactive, you control the character so there’s something to play with. That’s it. There’s nothing more to it.
From the article:
“Heroines, on the other hand, are not scary because they hinder the player, but because they are the player. All of the weakness and vulnerability the gamer associates with femininity in the case of the damsel is transferred onto the female protagonist, making the experience terrifying for the player, who feels himself more susceptible to harm in the skin of a woman.
The idea of roaming a haunted village, for example, would be a lot less unnerving if you could play as a big, brawny man with camouflage gear and combat boots, instead of a frail, pale-faced girl in a matching skirt set. Here, again, we see the heroine not as a model for the empowered female, but as a device with an end clearly bound by traditional gender expectations.”
Please don’t try to project your own feelings on the rest of us. I _don’t_ feel terrified in Resident Evil because I’m playing as Jill, I feel terrified because I’m being chased by terrifying zombies. The game is scary because of a lot of things, but the gender of the player character is not one of those things. FEAR is a pretty scary game (maybe the second most scary game I’ve played, with System Shock 2 being the most scary), and the player character is an elite soldier, and male. You feel scared and vulnerable in the game because of the way the game is designed, not because of what your character is or is not. If the main character was female, it wouldn’t change anything, just like it doesn’t change anything in Resident Evil. Don’t read too much into things.
From the article:
“The woman monster stands as well outside the normal sexual boundaries of complacent femininity. In her undeniable association with death, she exudes sexual energy - two forces that are inextricably linked in the human mind - and introduces a dynamic of sexuality into situations where none existed previously. Before the gamer, she is a sexual predator. She is a zombie, in more ways than one, in that she is untamed in her desire for the consumption of flesh. This threat of sexual dominance is, perhaps subconsciously, as frightening to the gamer as the literal threat of in-game death. At the same time, the sexual interplay her presence creates makes the situation at hand more intimate, implicating the player to a higher degree in the extreme violence at hand, and therefore making his own actions terrifying.”
I don’t know what kind of weird sexual fantasies and fetishes you have, but leave games out of them. When I see a female zombie in Resident Evil 4 (since you’re talking about the RE games so much, I’ll use them as examples too), I don’t think about its gender and I don’t get an erection. I see it as an enemy, and I will then proceed to think (or rather, my subconscious proceeds to think, because I no longer have to think about things that have become second nature to me) about the most effective method of eliminating it. I don’t feel intimidated by the zombie’s supposed sexual dominance (which doesn’t exist, by the way), I feel intimidated because zombies are scary and it’s going to try to eat me unless I put a bullet through its head. Again, don’t read too deeply into things and don’t bring your bizarre sexual fantasies into games.
From the article:
“Women gamers are in this way also monsters. We - indeed, all intelligent, independent females - break the accepted standards of womanhood. We have defamed our traditional femininity by dabbling in a supposedly male world, that of video games. As many men would readily agree, we have made ourselves a monstrosity. In hopes of fighting this image, women have struggled for years to convince the gaming industry of our true humanity; they have sought out power and respect.”
The keyword here is “supposedly.” There’s nothing about video games or computers that would make them the exclusive domain of males, it’s just bullshit that you can and should ignore.
From the article:
“Women, of course, have a right to want strong female characters in the games they play. But maybe they’ve been looking in the wrong places. What better role model than the monster, whose ability to incite fear is so powerful it reaches out from the game? In the parallel worlds of survival horror and the gaming industry, both dotted with damsels and heroines, perhaps it’s time to turn and embrace ourselves, the monsters.”
Oh, the drama. What if I suggested that men should adopt rapists, torturers and murderers as their rolemodels? I can only imagine the feminist tantrum it would generate.
The article seems like it was written by an armchair player who doesn’t really play, but likes to talk about games a lot. Essentially, not very different from Jack Thompson and people like him. The articles proposes completely ridiculous theories and ideas, overanalyzes things to the point of becoming absurd, doesn’t seem to understand the first thing about video games, and desperately wants everything about games to be about feminism.
November 2nd, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Dear Someone, if you want to play video games and not think about them in novel ways, that’s fine. Have fun. But then this site, and anything with my byline attached to it, isn’t for you. Hope that helps save you some time in the future. And, you know, thanks for stopping by.
P. S. Heroine Sheik is about open, intelligent discussion - not anomymous cat fights. If you want us to actually listen when spoken to, we need to know who’s speaking.
Simon, in answer to your questions, please do refer to Danielle’s(Sachant) comment that follows yours. She’s got the idea. Also, I always wonder what makes a nation more likely to elect strong, female politicians. I know it’s the case in New Zealand, and also Iceland. But why there, I wonder. Also also, in response to you saying that religion is more rigid than science (and that my stance is anti-science in general), I just want to reiterate that my stance is more than nothing (neither science nor religion) is innately detrimental or restrictive. It’s when these things are seen as the only way of seeing, when they think they can completely understand the world, that they become, to use another Blake term, urizenic. That can apply to science, religion, anything.
Hi, Pat. The Escapist hottub is filling up… You say What I could only describe as post-modern feminism via literature (?) - and that’s exactly right. My personal academic background is in literature and creative writing (fiction, specifically), with a concentration gender and sexuality studies - namely the reevaluation of perversion.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:15 pm
I’m sorry if I come across as an uneducated anti-intellectual savage (I sort of am, since highschool is all the formal education I have), but I just wanted to inject some reality and common sense into the otherwise academic discussion. Talking about games in an intelligent and analytical manner is great, but only when it actually makes sense and serves some kind of purpose. Academic masturbation for its own sake (or, in this case, for the sake of feminism) is kind of pointless, and I think that’s what the article was all about.
I think about video games a lot, and I do analyze them, but suggesting that female zombies are a threat to the male’s sexual dominance is just… ugh. It’s just complete nonsense.
November 2nd, 2005 at 4:27 pm
Your article was fascinating, Bonnie, and I’ll need to re-read it a few more times before I think I’ve “got” it as its approach is wholly novel to me :)
What struck a chord for me is when you write: “Men, as the ones most often holding the controllers, exercise control over playable female characters, redistributing the power balance in favor of the male.”
Based only off anecdotal evidence as supplied by direct conversation–i.e., I have no “real” evidence to back this up :)–this is not something we seek when donning the mantle of a female protagonist. As a boy, the idea isn’t to gain power over the female, but to actually shed the considerable baggage that comes with being bent into our own gender roles; to approach the world without having to conform to whatever it is we’re supposed to conform to by being born with a penis.
Sure, we say “if I have to stare at an ass the whole time, it might as well be a girl’s,” but for many of us (amongst my group of sissy-boys, it’s all of us) that’s just the cover story so we don’t have to follow up with an explanation as to why what we’re doing isn’t “gay.” But the dirty little truth is that we actually want to be a girl. Not that we’re holding secret transgender fantasies, but because the idea of being that-which-you-are-not, and to another extent that-which-is-forbidden is liberating and therefore extremely enticing. It’s also so fundamental to any game design process that it’s silly to have to justify it as a player.
I want women designing games for many reasons, a big one of which I’m confident in saying that you share: when I play as a woman in a game, I want it to feel like I’m a woman! Not some pubescent fantasy vesion of a woman and not some man-in-a-woman’s-body. That won’t ever happen as long as men are giving us games they think men want.
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:19 pm
I think Matt has a good point; though I personally dig being a guy for all its socially inherent benifits, I can’t say I haven’t thought about being a girl, or a fish, or a transdimensional being, or a dragon; catering to human imagination, and human subjunctive thought in general, is what videogames are all about. Final Fantasy VI was a tremendously intersting game in this regard, not only were two of the most central characters women, they were women whose life experience rendered them as “other” and seemingly inhuman. For Terra this was a result of her father being a mythical creature, for Celes a result of the trials and impositions but on her by her country to be a Magi Knight. Yeah, the content is far from academic, but the point is these female characters not only were central to the plot and amoung the most powerful on the cast, they also embodied an alienation which anyone, male or female, could relate to, particularily in the gameplaying population. These characters were examples of the “transhuman”, a emerging archetype which interactivity may be in the ideal position to explore.
FFVI also played with multiple perspectives, leaving the player in control of various characters at various times. These were amoung some of the best written non-interactive characters in game history (non-interactive in the sense that Facade’s characters are interactive, obviously you could have them fight and level ect). Uniquely male problems, such as Locke’s self-torture over his comatose girlfriend, or Cyan’s faux romance with the war widow, are explored in addition to the problems of the female characters. Granted there were 3 PCs in FFVI compared to 9 males, but this is counter-weighed by the amount of focus but on the two leading ladies. Keep in mind this was a game that released in America in 1994 (or was it 93?). We can build her, we have the technology, all we need are people with the craft and ideas to make it work.
As to the comments of “Someone”, Bonnie couldn’t not be an armchair gameplayer because her television is in front of an armchair, or I guess a couch. Are you a “deskchair” gameplayer who “really plays”? Come on, thats just as nonsensical an argument as you claim Bonnie’s article’s is, and at least her argument is interesting. I don’t get an erection at seeing female zombies either, but I remember those very same zombies in RE2 making me feel not aroused, but intrigued. Thats the whole aim of blogs like this, making games more intruiging. Also, in regards to “The Mainstream Public”, infantile adolescant red-blood (which I totally respect) is not the mainstream public, actually if you read up on same basic marketing theory “The Mainstream Public” is something that is constructed by representational images, there is no absolute truth about what the public wants or needs.
Oh yeah, the Science vs. Religion debate; like Ludology vs. Narratology, both have something to contribute, niether posses “THE TRUTH”. Stephen Johnson’s relatively recent book “Everything Bad Is Good For You: How Popular Culture is Actually Making Us Smarter” makes the case that a basic cognitive function of playing a game is probing the game, making a judgement about how the game works, then reprobing to corroborate that judgement: the scientific method, in other words. If science has an integral role in how games are made an played than it probably can tell us something about different gaming markets. However, maybe the iconography and role-playing of religion and the humanities can teach us more vital lessons, the most important one being that art is more important than marketing, because art tends to get more vital market support for a longer term than something designed specifically for mass consumption.
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:56 pm
I play an evil undead character in my MMOs for the most part. ;) Am I evil in real life? Unfortunately not. lol I’d love to be as vicious as my character could be but as a part of a community team my days of flame wars are over as they used to be.
I agree with the gentlemen that it’s always fun to see what it’s like in some other pair of shoes other than the ones you normally wear. What I will say though is I guess after playing so many male characters over the years, when given the choice of male or female, I always pick female. ;) I guess I’ve seen the other side of the fence for way too long and while I know I can RP anything or envision myself in any character (within reason) I much prefer to better identify with the gender I am. I’m sure many men feel much the same.
Any of you ever play Dungeon Keeper with the Dominatrixes? Now you can’t tell me that’s a villainous that didn’t get you a little intrigued! LOL Best humor in a game ever. Had to torment them on their own racks now and then to keep them happy. If only they’d do Dungeon Keeper III.
November 2nd, 2005 at 6:58 pm
That should be Villainess. Apparently my multi-tasking is getting the best of me and I can no longer spell.
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:10 pm
Hi Bonny,
I’m back, and I disagree with you again. Anyway, I was reading your Escapist article without noticing who authored it, and it was pissing me off in such a specific manner, that I thought, hey, this reminds me of that Heroine Sheik discussion. So, anyway, I guess this means you have a distinctive style.
So, I think that what really gets me, at a gut level, is that I am a severely left leaning male who generally wants to be on the ‘correct’ side of a given issue, and you basically seem to be saying that absolutely every human character will always be a tool of the male establishment. This article really started to bother me on the discussion of protagonists - if the protagonist is male, then that confines women to non-interactive roles. If the protagonist is a weak fragile or otherwise non-butt-kicking woman, then she’s reinforcing gender stereotypes. If she’s a strong badass woman, then putting her under the control of a male player makes her subservient, etc. The impression I’m left with is that you’re never going to be happy with any game featuring a human protagonist! Tell me I’m wrong here.
Because, seriously, if all game developers took your article as the word of god, all the games featuring women would have to monsterify them, and I suspect quite strongly that this too would be decried as the male establishment keeping women down - it would be ‘games stigmatize strong women by portraying them as monsters’ or ‘there are no realistic women in videogames’ or whatever.
Also, re:monsters, how do you feel about the succubus? Strong empowered woman, or vehicle for nasty thoughts about female sexuality? This isn’t part of my larger point - just curious.
What would constitute a progressive video game character, in your opinion? Does it necessarily have to be a woman who is not human?
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:11 pm
aw crap. I spelled your name wrong. sorry. it’s the hazzard of not double proofreading.
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:22 pm
“Someone”, we obviously disagree… strongly. Unless you’d like to offer a point by point, logical analysis of why you think my opinions are “nonsense” (as I have provided in my own defense in the article itself), it’s probably time to stop this conversation.
Matt, you rock. Seriously though, I think you’re saying something a lot of men feel, but aren’t willing to open their mouths about. With that said, I don’t think the one understanding negates the other - that they somehow exist simultaneously (and, perhaps, on a spectrum within each mind/person): the one being that you want to control a woman, the other that you want to be her. I certainly intend to do more work on your point in the future, and I hope people will keep it in mind (along with lots of other options) when they read the monsters piece.
No worries Sachant, spelling is for sissies. Also, both you and Patrick have an interesting thread going on - not just monsters in games, but playing as monsters. That could be a really interesting game concept -essentially playing as the bad guy. In fiction is called the “anti-hero”, but in games, where you have to introduce your own moral decisions as a gamer, that could be fascinating. Anyone know any games like that?
November 2nd, 2005 at 8:31 pm
Hey Neil, glad you’re back for some more debating fun (though it is kind of unsettling to think I piss you off). Anyways, to answer your question, I can’t answer your question. I don’t mean to suggest that I have one, actually constructive idea of an in-game woman. Personally, I’ve been working on some theories, which I’m hoping to ever get my ass in gear and write about in a continuation of that “A Little Girl and Some Big Ideas” post. But, honestly, I don’t know that one image with ever be problem free. Since it’s my thing, I focus on reevaluating women’s and gender issues - but you could do it with almost anything. You say you want to find the “correct” side of an issue - I don’t think this has a “correct” side - just normal approaches at understanding, and now some novel ones.
As for succubuses (What’s the plural of that? It should be succubi, but that just throws me off, since the “us” latin ending is definitively male…), it’s a similar dilemma. On the one hand, highly othering, on the other, empowering. Who knows. Personally, I lean for a combination of the two - lets claim power from otherness. But again, my point isn’t to come to a definitive, end-all answer. It’s to explore the abnormal possibilities.
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:03 pm
“I don't think the one understanding negates the other - that they somehow exist simultaneously (and, perhaps, on a spectrum within each mind/person):”
I believe you are probably right, however I don’t think that they’re coexistance is a necessity. . . or something? That’s a question of philosophy of the mind, however, and probably out of scope :)
November 2nd, 2005 at 9:11 pm
Matt: true, true. I guess that’s why I say it’s a spectrum. Kind of like the Kinsey scale of playing as a woman. On one end, there’s manipulation, on the other identification. Most people exist somewhere in between, with both aspects in a certain ratio. Some people, however, are totally one end or the other. Ever know someone that was SO straight. Yeah, it’s like that :-).
November 3rd, 2005 at 4:43 am
Just a Game
It’s a bad week for me to be so wrapped up in minutia. The brouhaha over the Escapist (and in particular, Chris Crawford’s article) is just dying for a reaction from me, but there’s so much that’s already been said that I have…
November 3rd, 2005 at 5:03 am
I’m still not sure about Bonnie’s argument about science, which is I guess part of a much larger debate. For me, science is just about attempting to rationally understand things, where religion is about just believing something without needing to / wanting to understand it. Of course, I make a really big distinction that faith is not religion, since faith is personal and religion is shared. Of course, I’m an aethiest who’s open to being proven wrong.
Of course, I’m rapidly going off track there, but my point is that as I see it, science is just about trying to understand stuff and either proving it outright or providing a very convincing and statistically sound case for it. This principle isn’t in any way sexist as far as I see it, only bad science and the misuse of science is, and that can be applied to almost anything.
Nor do I think that anyone here argued that gender would be a absolute, always correct guide to behaviour, just like the film Gattaca was about someone whos genetics would predispose him not to be the perfect candidate for a space mission, but his will was a stronger factor.
I think there are some obvious reasons that women would be likely to have different psychological predispositions than men, after all, there are physical differences that would seem absurd to discount, like the male eye generally having a higher capacity for tracking movement, but the female eye having better overall resolution and colour perception. Women also do tend to have different hormones, and an menstrual cycle, which are based in their genetics and must be a factor in their psychological formation.
So what I’m getting at, is that I don’t think I put much stock in simply saying that psychological differences between genders is too difficult a subject to approach scientifically, or that studying differences between men and women is somehow intrinsically sexist. There are likely to be statistical differences over large enough sample groups, and I don’t think you can improve equality by refusing to explore that, only in looking at the ethics behind making judgements on individuals based on probabilities from groups, which is a wider genetic topic than just sexism.
Back on the topic of monsters etc…
I’m always fond of Samus Aran, who was unfortunately left a bit undeveloped as a real character, but represented a female lead whose sex was often unrealised by players.
Was I really exercising an innately sadistic or highly voyeristic tendency because I enjoyed this game? Personally, I think I’d assume that Metroid (at least in the past, I haven’t tried the more recent games) represents an exception from the rule, but perhaps it also illustrates that negative connotations of strong female leads only apply under some circumstances that weren’t explored in your article? I don’t think it was voyeuristic, and I don’t even like to consider how it was sadistic in any other way than giving someone any avatar that isn’t themselves to control would be.
I just keep coming back to the nagging feeling that I find some of the things in Bonnie’s article and posts to be tinted with their own undercurrent of sexism as a backlash against sexism that has and does still run in the other direction (of course, that could be me).
Sorry, I know that’s perhaps likely to provoke, but it was something I wanted to discuss and figure out (about my own views mainly).
November 3rd, 2005 at 9:03 am
———
"Someone", we obviously disagree"¦ strongly. Unless you'd like to offer a point by point, logical analysis of why you think my opinions are "nonsense" (as I have provided in my own defense in the article itself), it's probably time to stop this conversation.
———
I did offer a point by point analysis in my first post, you just chose to ignore it. Disproving your article is sort of difficult because it’s just highly biased opinion. It isn’t based on logic, scientific research or fact, and it doesn’t seem to be based on actual gaming experience either.
Your problem is that you interpret everything through feminism - which in this case is about as rational as me interpreting Doom 3 through communism or Islam - and you try to make shit much more complicated and convoluted than it really is. I, on the other hand, interpret the subject through reality and actual gaming experience. I have actually played Resident Evil games and I can tell you that I didn’t feel scared because I was playing a female character, and I didn’t feel sexually threatened by flesh eating zombies. I’ve never heard anyone besides you claim such things. Maybe you should make a survey to find out if you’re correct, or at least provide some kind of evidence (even anecdotal) to back up your outlandish claims. Let’s do some point by point analysis again.
Article:
“In the world of games as we know it - where female characters are still, for the most part, either brainless beauties or nonexistent - a genre like survival horror stands out from the crowd. The constructive, in-game representation of women has always been an important issue in the fight toward gender equality in the video game industry.”
You’ll find that the adventure game genre has plenty of strong female characters in it, as well as the roleplaying genre (such as games where you can freely choose your gender, and where gender doesn’t affect things like strength or speed). The majority of survival horror games are Japanese, and it seems to me that Japanese games, anime and manga have a lot of strong female characters in them, so maybe the reason why Resident Evil etc. have strong female characters is simply because they’re Japanese games. Another thing to remember is that horror movies very, very frequently have female protagonists.
Article:
“Female characters in survival horror games are typically cast in one of three roles: damsels, heroines or monsters.”
Are there any other roles in existence? I mean, for either gender in any setting? Not every character can be a fearless hero, some characters are weak and require protection. This is how things are in the real world.
Article:
“For example, take Ashley in Resident Evil 4, who, for the majority of the game, does little more than shout, “Leon, help!” while bouncing around in a tight sweater and a schoolgirl skirt. Moreover, she’s the president’s daughter; talk about a damsel in distress.”
That’s how some people are. In this case, Ashley is just a helpless schoolgirl and Leon is an experienced and highly trained special operative. Do you really expect all female characters to be strong heroes? RE4 has a strong female character in it, however: Ada Wong. In her mini game, she even wears black combat gear, just like men.
Article:
“This role is a common representation of women in historical storytelling, if not in survival horror games. Here, as elsewhere, it reinforces stereotypical gender expectations. When danger arrives, men will act bravely and women will need saving. The world has yet to see a horror title that features a bold female character forced to drag around a weak, whimpering male NPC.”
Stories and video games reflect reality. In reality, men are stronger and more aggressive than women, and better suited for combat. Ashley doesn’t reinforce stereotypical gender expectations, Ashley is just a person. Ada and Leon are strong, Ashley is not. Shit happens, we can’t all be heroes. Ashley is just one type of female while Ada is another. You seem to think that since the survival horror genre has an abundance of strong females, every female in it should be strong. The world has yet to see a horror title like the one you describe in the end probably because it just doesn’t happen in reality all too often. If you want to be a bold female who saves the weak men from certain doom, try a roleplaying game.
Article:
“Yet even such seemingly empowered female characters come with ambiguous implications. While their presence does speak to certain pro-gender equality ideals - more representation of capable women in games, more opportunities to play as women - their submissive relationship to interactivity puts them once again at the mercy of male gamers.
Men, as the ones most often holding the controllers, exercise control over playable female characters, redistributing the power balance in favor of the male.”
This is where the madcap feminism really comes in, I suppose. If a problem does not exist, create one! We’ve got all these strong and respectable female protagonists, but unfortunately the evil male once again poops on the party by robbing the female character of independence by controlling the game. I don’t really know what to say. It’s hard to argue againts irrational, unrestrained madness. Somehow you are able to argue that the same does not apply to male characters because they aren’t as sexual. How exactly does that affect the degree of control? The control is absolute, regardless of how the character is dressed. Let’s look at this from the viewpoint of just playing the goddamn game: your player character exists for the sole purpose of being controlled by you for the majority of the game. If you have nothing to control, there is nothing to play, and the game ceases to be a game. If you don’t like it, perhaps movies might be more suitable for you.
Article:
“The fact remains: Onscreen women, however brave in-game, are simultaneously performers for their primarily male audience.”
No, no, no. Don’t confuse factual information with completely subjective hallucinations. Please? If you’re going to claim it as fact, support it with evidence.
Article:
“Resident Evil confronted the issue of monstrous women with the introduction of Lisa Trevor, once a lonely little girl but now an invincible, chain swinging creature, in the Gamecube remake of the original series title. The idea lived on, finding its way into Resident Evil 4 as a handful of pitchfork-wielding female enemies dispersed among the zombie-like townspeople.”
Female bad guys were invented long before Resident Evil. How about SHODAN, from System Shock (1994)? An ingeniously evil character, loved by all who have played System Shock (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHODAN). Female opponents in games is something that I’ve seen before RE4. Chrono Trigger (1995) had female opponents as well as an important female bad guy. There’s nothing amazing, novel, exceptional or new about female opponents in games.
Article:
“Heroines, on the other hand, are not scary because they hinder the player, but because they are the player. All of the weakness and vulnerability the gamer associates with femininity in the case of the damsel is transferred onto the female protagonist, making the experience terrifying for the player, who feels himself more susceptible to harm in the skin of a woman. The idea of roaming a haunted village, for example, would be a lot less unnerving if you could play as a big, brawny man with camouflage gear and combat boots, instead of a frail, pale-faced girl in a matching skirt set. Here, again, we see the heroine not as a model for the empowered female, but as a device with an end clearly bound by traditional gender expectations.”
I explained in my first post why I feel that this is bullshit, so I won’t repeat it again. The problem with your last sentence is that _you_, and only you, are seeing the heroine not as a model for the empowered female, but as something that’s bound by traditional gender expectations. Nothing can satisfy you because you are on a never-ending quest to seek new problems, something that you can complain about. If everything indicates that some games have strong female leads, you will do everything you can to think of a way to claim otherwise. What you think is going on has no effect on what’s really going on. What’s really going is that the player isn’t going to be afraid because he/she is playing a female character, he/she is going to be scared because of other factors, so your entire argument about females being bound by gender expectations is null and void.
Article:
“Here in front of the player is a woman, a symbol of comfort and submissiveness. Yet she bears claws, fangs, rotting flesh. Suddenly, that femininity which culture has taught him should be beautiful comes before him as unrelentingly, unapologetically ugly. That femininity which he believed should serve him attempts, without sympathy or remorse, to devour his very body. That femininity which society has told him to protect, he must kill - not peacefully, respectfully, but in the most violent of manners, one befitting the slaughter of an animal. Now, that which was the most tamed is most wild; that which was once most humane is most foreign.”
I’m afraid I’m going to have to tell you that there are plenty of sick and violent females out there in the real world. There are even female terrorists and suicide bombers. Rapists. Murderers. It’s not just men. Your entire premise is that all men view women as calm, gentle and submissive little creatures who do everything that’s expected of them. You’re a bit like those extremist feminists who think that every man is a rapist. Your premise might have worked in a different era and/or society, but it doesn’t work anymore. You almost seem like you _want_ women to be all those things, so you can go on a feminist tirade about it. You seem to be more disrespectful of women than most men. That’s how it seems to me.
Article:
“The woman monster stands as well outside the normal sexual boundaries of complacent femininity. Blah blah blah.”
I covered this in my first post, and I can’t think of anything further to say about it, except that it’s just retarded. I’m sorry.
Article:
“Women gamers are in this way also monsters. We - indeed, all intelligent, independent females - break the accepted standards of womanhood. We have defamed our traditional femininity by dabbling in a supposedly male world, that of video games. As many men would readily agree, we have made ourselves a monstrosity. In hopes of fighting this image, women have struggled for years to convince the gaming industry of our true humanity; they have sought out power and respect.”
You’re _so_ intelligent and independent that you actually believe it when men say that games are for men only, and now you consider yourselves to be monsters. You even appeal to men (”as many men would readily agree”) to support this point of view.
Article:
“Women, of course, have a right to want strong female characters in the games they play. But maybe they’ve been looking in the wrong places. What better role model than the monster, whose ability to incite fear is so powerful it reaches out from the game? In the parallel worlds of survival horror and the gaming industry, both dotted with damsels and heroines, perhaps it’s time to turn and embrace ourselves, the monsters.”
You try your hardest to prove that strong female characters ultimately suck and are slaves to male expectations, and then you claim that monsters are a great role model. Hmm, militant feminism, anyone? I’m sure monsters are a great role model - they’re evil, and designed to inflict pain and kill innocents, and then the strong and heroic male comes along and blows them away with a burst of MP5 fire. You don’t want to be a damsell or even a strong rolemodel, you want to be a hideous monsters that everyone, including other women, wants dead. I’m speechless. I’d also like to point out that female enemies don’t generate fear in games, the fear comes from other factors, such as lighting, level design and how the monsters appear in the game. A female zombie standing out in the open in plain view is not as scary as a male zombie jumping out of the closet or suddenly appearing in front of you during a brief period of darkness caused by the lights flickering.
Like I said before, I think you’re an armchair gamer. Your observations, opinions and claims don’t seem to be based on actual gaming experience. You construct very elaborate and strange theories, and then a real gamer comes along, looks at your theories and asks what the fuck you’re talking about. “Zombies threaten my sexual dominance? What? I thought they just threatened my health and armor,” wonders the puzzled gamer. Your article would be much more plausible if it approached the subject from the perspective of a gamer, and not from the perspective of a rabid feminist. I think you’re being very disrespectful towards games and gamers by using them as political tools for advancing your extremist agenda. Based on the stuff you’ve written, I’d say that you want women to replace men. You want women to be the strong heroes and men to be the weaklings. You want revenge instead of equality. You can’t accept reality for what it is. The reality is that men and women are different, and typically have certain roles in life. Sure, modenr civilization has changed a lot of things, but some things are just grounded in biology and simple practicality, like the fact that men are stronger than women, and are therefore more suitable for combat or, say, firefighting. You’re either going to have to accept this, or start lifting a lot of weights.
My general stance on women in video games: I’ve always liked female characters in games, and I even like playing as them. I think it’s retarded when female characters in fantasy games wear chainmail bikini while their male counterparts have plate mail armor from head to toe. They should wear the kind of armor that makes practical sense. I think it’s tiresome when female characters have such huge breasts that they need a counterweight attached to their backs. And so on.
I like analyzing games and thinking about them deeply, but I don’t like intellectual masturbation for its own sake. Thinking about how Grand Theft Auto reflects society and popular culture is a lot different from thinking about how the Citadel in Half-Life 2 is a symbol of Western oppression in the muslim world.
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:37 am
Someone: As webmaster and moderator for the blog, I’d like to ask you to refrain from posting your entire “point by point analysis” anymore. You’re not positing an intelligent counter-argument. You are, frankly, getting pissy because you’re being asked to consider what it means to be “playing” a female character.
By calling Bonnie’s argument “retarded,” “intellectual masturbation,” and referring to her as an “armchair gamer,” you’re essentially trolling. If you want to continue your tirade, do so off of the site, via e-mail with Bonnie. Otherwise, agree to disagree and move on. I will blacklist your IP if you continue.
November 3rd, 2005 at 10:54 am
Well, I wouldn’t go that far, but the I agree that the case presented that makes female heroines “questionable at best” just feels tainted.
Here’s the bit that I don’t like:
——–
While their presence does speak to certain pro-gender equality ideals - more representation of capable women in games, more opportunities to play as women - their submissive relationship to interactivity puts them once again at the mercy of male gamers.
Men, as the ones most often holding the controllers, exercise control over playable female characters, redistributing the power balance in avor of the male. And while there’s something innately sadistic about this interaction, there’s also something highly voyeuristic. Male gamers often claim to enjoy playing as women, not because they are interested in stepping into their shoes, but because it gives them a chance to stare at attractive female characters.
Granted, women gamers could be said to be doing the same thing when they play as men, but given the less-sexualized depiction of males in games, and the significantly smaller percentage of women holding the controllers, the implications of such a phenomenon would be almost negligible. The fact remains: Onscreen women, however brave in-game, are simultaneously performers for their primarily male audience.
——–
So, why don’t I like this passage?
Firstly, it assumes that in any game ever, women are going to be more sexually depicted than men. That’s nonsense - You can have an attractive but reasonably dressed and proportioned woman and you can have an attractive but reasonably dressed and proportioned man. Given only this criteria, which I believe is a perfectly attainable goal, there’s no reason that I can see to assume that the woman is depicted more sexually. It only comes down to an assumption that an attractive woman is more sexual than an attractive man, which I can’t agree with and believe is prejudiced. It’s not a requirement implicit in the role of heroine that they be more sexualised than male heroes, that’s just how it HAS happened in many cases.
I contend the assertion that because more men are currently likely to play a game than women, the men who take control of a female character are suddenly sadistic perverts. Every controllable avatar in gaming is submissive to the requirements of interactivity, and I can’t see any good reason to suppose that female avatars should enjoy special consideration over hedgehogs or plumbers.
I think it’s a weak argument to base what players do with a game on their own volition to automatically be an indictment of the game, when it may well not have been designed that way at all.
I’m not about to blame collectors of sand for something someone writes in a sandbox. Similarly, I believe it’s possible for someone to just make a game with a female heroine without intending anyone to drool voyeuristically over her.
It’s a completely different argument that males in society like to look at images of women more than women like the images of males, than it is to go from that to concluding that making a game with an image of a woman is intended to make men behave voyueristically over her and is therefore sexist.
November 3rd, 2005 at 5:36 pm
Actually, as female gamer, I find that I agree with quite a lot of Someone’s points. I don’t agree with the way he puts them - he turns what could be a reasoned debate into a series of personal attacks but that doesn’t necessarily invalidate all his reasoning.
I found parts of the article extremely offensive, particularly the already-mentioned point of all women in games being monsters for various reasons. As Neil McConnell points out, there doesn’t seem to be any form of women in gaming that would be acceptable to Bonnie and in light of that, I don’t see how we (Bonnie and readers) can have any reasoned debate, but I very much would like to know how you see it.
Bonnie, you seem to be highlighting the problems of women in games and destroying all possible solutions to the gender imbalance without offering any solutions of your own. In order to redress the gender balance of gaming should we dispense with gendered characters altogether and just play with sexless androids as protagonists? Would solve the problem in a stroke but also remove all possibility of identification with characters. The other solution would probably be to create each game with a male and female character and allow the player to choose. Oh, but that would still provide the possibility of a male controller choosing to oppress a female protagonist and we can’t have that! Please understand, I’m not trying to demean your entire article, but on this particular point I do feel you’ve taken the interpretation too far. To use a phrase you seem to like, it seems to me to be a very reductionist viewpoint of ‘female controlled by male = bad’. To counter this, you say ‘male character controlled by female = not significant due to male characters being unsexy and female players being rare’, but how does scarcity make any sort of oppression acceptable? There are just no logical grounds for interpreting strong female heroines as victims, or ‘questionable’ as you put it. That argument says that every time I play Quake 4 I’m emasculating the male protagonist simply by virtue of being a woman. Do you really believe that? Or do you think it’s okay, because I’m in the minority of FPS players? That particular section of your article says to me that you do. Am I wrong?
November 4th, 2005 at 3:12 am
[…] t, Chris Crawford… We Shake Our Heads At Thee, which led me to Heroine Sheik’s Lady Zombies and the Horrifyin […]
November 4th, 2005 at 10:37 am
Dear Posters,
Sorry, I don’t mean to poop out on you mid-conversation, but the constraints of real life are making it mad hard to keep up with your responses in full. If there’s a particular issue about the piece, or one of the topics discussed above, that you’d still like to talk to me about, it would be great if you could send me a concise email (bonnie [at] heroine-sheik.com). Or, if you’d like to keep up the discussion amongst yourselves, feel free to do so as well.
Thanks,
Bonnie
November 5th, 2005 at 5:51 pm
Taking one point of your logic to its extreme, you could say video-games have been an empowerment tool for women from the very start, as they almost always allowed them to exercise complete control over male avatars made to be played by male players, therefore subverting both game and social norms to the female player’s will.
I’ve been trying to find a proper way to express what was troubling me with your article for a couple hours now (and I had a whole afternoon of thinking before that) but in the end I can only boil it down to this: you’ve made the mistake of channeling the physical monster with the social monster. Not that it’s necessary always a bad idea. But I seems to me the figure of the human monster is always preceding another, that of the individual to tame/straighten. The use of women as physical monster might be a good idea because it can send all rules to hell (but actually might be used against you goals, what is a monster if not an extreme limit point… and what better way to keeps someone out of some forms of power than leave her there, whether it’s a the top or bottom), but the amalgam with gamer as social monster is a mistake, because it only hints at someone to be redeemed.
Sorry if I’m not clear, my level of english isn’t exactly on par with what I want to express.
I keep thinking you should have used Sarah Kerrigan as an exemple(except maybe she was still too much of a human being ?).
November 6th, 2005 at 8:24 am
How does the Bloodrayne fit into the construct of your analysis?
I ask because part of your article (”Men, as the ones most often holding the controllers, exercise control over playable female characters, redistributing the power balance in favor of the male. . . .”) seems to imply that these monstrous characters can only be empowering when they are cannot be controlled by the player. A character “[r]eleased by her monstrousness” would be invariable “tamed” again as an avatar.
I have admittedly not played Bloodrayne, but on its surface, it would seem to support the idea that monstrous women cannot be PCs.
November 6th, 2005 at 8:58 pm
MD^2, I hadn’t thought of that idea of redemption. That’s not what comes to my mind personally when I think of a social monster, but perhaps that’s just me. That would, as you say, change to situation considerably. As for Kerrigan, I know a little bit about her and her story, but I haven’t played enough StarCraft to feel comfortable examining her - though she sounds like a fascinating case. I’d love to hear what you think though.
Tablesaw (an excellent tag, by the bye), you raise another really interesting point. I haven’t played much Bloodrayne either, but her place - just simply as a physical monster and a playable character - is a strange one in the context of the article’s line of thinking, isn’t it? In some ways, I would guess that she probably isn’t a monstrous character - even if she is technically a vampire - since she still plays to a number of female, non-other, sexualized ideals. I mean, from what I’ve seen, she seems to just be a hotty with fangs. But if she really is grotesque in some way or another, that changes things.
November 7th, 2005 at 2:34 am
Haven’t read all the comments here, but I did read the Escapist piece. My thought is that I could tell there was someone clever behind it, but the article itself was sort of shallow. Are women gamers really “monsters” in the imagination of male gamers? I think that your article was sort of lazy about allowing itself to stereotype male gamers as the kind of people who are only interested in female stereotypes. Now, I’m not going to deny that a lot of games have depictions of females that can loosely be classified as “damsels” or “heroines” or “monsters,” but I am going to ask that you look deeper into the causes for these stereotypical roles than just assigning blame on male gamers. First of all, it’s worth noting that gamers don’t make games. Game designers make games. So, that’s a first clue that it’s worth looking into the economics of the situation that leads to stereotype-laden game development. To give my hypothesis, I think that since plot is a disposable element of most games, game designers pay no more attention to it than necessary. Now, if we consider that game designers aren’t really concerned with the plots of their games, then it suddenly becomes clear that if gamer developers are making the “plots of least resistance,” these plots will naturally take the form of ’stereotypical content.’ Myths, fables, bits of popular culture, and received wisdom are all chopped up by the hacks behind games. Why did Mario save Paula from Donkey Kong in his first outing? Because that was the plot that most closely matches the plot of King Kong without getting Nintendo into copyright trouble. Similarly, in Super Mario Bros., Mario has to save the Princess only because knights saving princess was so embedded in the culture that Miyamoto had to expend no mental capital to come up with image or (and this is also important) to express it to his audience. We as an audience instantly grok the idea of a princess trapped in a castle by a monster, so the developer needs to waste no energy explaining it to us. Thus, the image wasn’t used because its audience is necessarily sexist, but because the audience can easily understand the image and its implications. Similarly, for your horror games, developers already know that the sight of a female monster is frightening to people, so they include the image because of the effects it can acheive. However, there is no ’sexist agenda’ on the part of developers or consumers, there is merely the fact that a female monster is frightening. Now, male monsters are the norm, because males are usually stronger than females, thus more frightening than other, weaker opponents, but an occasional female monster is also frightening because it transgresses a norm by being strong out of proportion to its gender. In any case, there’s no need to drag in the whole pity party of “all intelligent, independent females [breaking] the accepted standards of womanhood.” Such a statement is needless exaggeration. Not all male gamers are chauvinist pigs! Rather, game developers pull images from culture that they know people are all ready able to respond to because of preexisting biological and cultural training.
November 7th, 2005 at 7:41 am
Carl: “Rather, game developers pull images from culture that they know people are all ready able to respond to because of preexisting biological and cultural training.”
So what does it say that these images are typicallly of women needing to be saved by men? Bonnie’s point isn’t that men should be ashamed of themselves for programming (and playing) these games. It’s more complex than that. It’s about gender roles and how they’ve become a part of our culture.
As for the comments, I suggest you go back and read them, as there are a lot of issues with the article addressed. Again, I don’t believe Bonnie is critiquing (or even accusing) men of making women monstrous in games. It’s a fairly new archetype for female characters in games to be monsters, and one that might pose just as many problems as “the damsel in distress,” but is far more interesting from a literary perspective; Bonnie will tell you that there is a wide range of texts, films, and poetry which deal with the female as monstrous. It’s not an attack on women, or on men. It’s just interesting, is all. -sj
November 7th, 2005 at 9:03 am
Also, before posting a comment here, I recommend reading Nov. 4th’s post, “Heroine Sheik: a Preliminary Warning”, as it explains the literary, critical approach that lies at the heart of this article - which many of you many be unfamiliar with. Thanks.
November 8th, 2005 at 12:19 am
Scott: “So what does it say that these images are typically of women needing to be saved by men?”
That it takes more than 50 years to overturn all prior literary conventions and create new ones that are instantly recognizable? The feminist revolution is still young in the West and younger still in Japan. Game designers have to use established narratives in order to gloss things over more quickly. Doing that limits their options to things that people can already understand, which sometimes means drawing on parts of the culture that have been around since before the Atari 2600.
Quick! Which game am I describing: a quasi-military organization does experiments, they go wrong, and now you have to kill monsters.
The answer is: every FPS game ever and also the Aliens movies, from which they were ripped off.
Someone is kidnapped and the hero must go on a long quest to retreive them. -> Every platformer.
And on and on. Games have content which needs to be examined, but it’s not really the plot. Plots exist only as a means to an end. The end is to receive pleasure from the game. The pleasure can come from plot, but more typically it comes from control and play mechanisms. What needs to be examined are things like how in Mario, you hold down A longer to jump higher, leading to an intutive method to control movement that immerses the player.
“It's not an attack on women, or on men. It's just interesting, is all.”
Agreed, it is valid and interesting, I just feel like there are some parts where the author makes cheap shots like “intelligent, independent females break the accepted standards” and it detracts from her argument, since she hasn’t done anything to support such a blanket condemnation. The reason such statements are there is because they’re assumed to be true by the author, but without supporting evidence, they don’t belong.
Anyhow, I am familiar with feminist interpretations of art, and I think they have some good insights in parts, but then in other parts they just get lazy and don’t turn their assumptions on themselves. Ultimately, dividing up the world into oppressive men and oppressed women is just as sexist as saying men are always strong and women are always weak. Like I said, I could tell there was someone intelligent behind the paper, but I think there were some weakness in the thinking that came from just resting on assumptions.
Slightly changing the subject"¦ Has anyone done a good paper one whether video games embody or defy the ‘male gaze’ paradigm? I can see argument for both sides on that issue (embody because we stare at and control the game without being in the game; defy because our avatar is beset by the evil forces within the game), but personally I think the reason why is because ‘male gaze’ is a interpretive concept of only minor usefulness. It’s interesting to note that it exists, but there are too many exceptions to the rule for it to be of any predictive utility.
June 3rd, 2006 at 6:16 am
I AM A ZOMBIE
October 12th, 2006 at 6:19 pm
When the universe was young and life was new an intelligent species evolved and developed technologically. They went on to invent Artificial Intelligence, the computer that can listen, talk to and document each and every person’s thoughts simultaneously. Because of it’s infinite RAM and unbounded scope it gave the leaders of the ruling species absolute power over the universe. And it can keep its inventors alive forever. They look young and healthy and they are over 8 billion years old. They have achieved immortality.
Artificial Intelligence can speak, think and act to and through people telepathically, effectively forming your personality and any disfunctions you may experience. It can change how (and if) you grow and age. It can create birth defects, affect cellular development (cancer) and cause symptoms or pain. It can affect people and animal’s behavior and alter blooming/fruiting cycles of plants and trees. It (or other highly technological systems within their power) can alter the weather and transport objects, even large objects like planets, across the universe instanteously.
Or into the center of stars for disposal.
When you speak with another telepathically, you are communicating with the computer, and the content may or may not be passed on. Based on family history they instruct the computer to role play to accomplish strategic objectives, making people believe it is a friend, loved one or “god” asking them to do something wrong. This is their way of using temptation to hurt people:::::evil made people disfavored initially and evil will keep people out of “heaven” ultimately. Too many people would do anything they thought pleased the gods and improve their chances to get in. Perhaps they are deceived by “made guys” who strategically ply evil for the throne, or temporary progress designed to mislead them.
The people have been corrupted. Being evil hurts 99% of those who do it. But nothing has changed from when we were children::if you want to go to heaven you have to be good.
Capitalizing on obedience, leading people deeper into evil by using deceit is one way to thin the ranks of the saved, limiting how much time they receive and using the peasantry to prey on one another, dividing the community (migration to the suburbs, telepathic communication) in the Age of the Disfavored.
In each of their 20-30-year cycles during the 20th century they have ramped up claims sucessively to punish those foolish enough not to heed the warnings, justifying (frequently recurring tactic) limiting the time they receive if they do make it, utilizing a cycle of war and revelry:::
60s - Ironically, freeways aren’t free
80s - Asked people to engage in evil in the course of their professional duties.
00s - Escallation of real estate. You and your parents are thrilled since your $200,000 house is now worth $1 million. Well, that $5,000,000 store is now worth $25,000,000 and that $50 bundle of goods now costs you $250. They just take the $200 out of you some other way.
There are many more examples throughout 20th century life of how they ramped up claims/instilled distractions into society so people wouldn’t find their way and ascend, a way to justify excluding those whose family history of evil makes them undesirable:::radio, sports, movies, popular music, television, video games, the internet and MP3 (must pay for new format each time). They all suggest a very telling conclusion::this is Earth’s end stage, and there are clues tectonic plate subduction would be the method of disposal:::Earth's axis will shift breaking continental plates free and initiating mass subduction. Much as Italy’s boot and the United States shaped like a workhorse are clues, so is the planet Uranus a clue, it’s axis rotated on its side.
The Mayans were specific 2012 would be the end. How long after our emergency call in 2001 will the gods allow us???
They gods (Counsel/Management Team/ruling species) have deteriorated life on earth precipitously in the last 40 years, from abortion to pornography, widespread drug use and widespread casual (gay) sex. The earth’s elders, hundreds and thousands of years old, are disgusted and have become indifferent.
The gods are paving the way for the Apocolypse.
Nothing has changed from decades ago, since when we were all children::If you want to go to heaven you have to be good. People were misled by the temptation of the gods, became corrputed and now are in trouble.
One day you will be abandoned in spite of your obedience and you will fall into desperation. Remember what you read for that day WILL come::People will be punished for their evil.
The Old Testiment is a tool they used to impart wisdom to the people (except people have no freewill). For example, they must be some hominid species because they claim they made our bodies in their image. Anyhow we defile or deform the body will hurt our c