Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
OF GAMES, REPRESENTATION, AND WOMEN'S CHEEKBONES
Posts
PentagonBuddy
View playlists
Close@Sooz: lmao I FEEL U SO HARD ON THE " "Look, kids! This person is trans, see? This is a Story About A Person Being Trans" and the general matter of indicating a character is trans.
I went and asked some Certified Trans Friends (five ppl including myself, and we're all non-binary trans. idk i never feel comfortable if it feels like im speaking for all trans folks/binary trans folks especially, so take this with a grain of salt and all) and like...things that came up about "how do you show a character is trans" question:
One reason it can seem daunting is that most media depictions of transness focus on external cues, like how someone is dressed or what they look like. This is hard to do without displaying common stereotypes (ah, she's a trans woman so...we need to show her putting on makeup! because women wear makeup!) You run into a lot of gross potential for things like "she looks like a man" and this furthers the idea that there are inherent """"biological"""" aspects that "reveal" someone's gender and like...ugh. It's a minefield. Hard to write.
The other way that someone is shown as trans is usually through violence, physical, verbal, social, whatever. This is just depressing, quite frankly. Yes, you can communicate that someone is trans by having another character misgendering them and being corrected, but this is often a sour note for trans folks in your audience. Personally, I would be okay with someone who might not look what you expect for their gender being referred to by correct pronouns by the people around them (and this isn't the punchline to a joke)
It'd be cool to see more things like fantasy Hormone Replacement Therapy, or magic being used for gender-related reasons. There's all kinds of potential to mention mundane details that don't necessarily focus on a character's physical experience. The example you gave, like mentioning a woman who shaves, could work in certain circumstances. Yes, that's a reality for some women, but it's easy to be perceived as a punchline...
Which is kind of the thing. Because of how negative trans depictions usually are, it's hard to build a mental library of "good" references. And when you go to do your own writing, having nothing but negative examples to pull from makes it hard. I wish I had something I could point to as a good example of "here's how to show a character is trans when the media in question is not about being trans", but none of us had examples off the top of our head. We did talk about our own work or things we'd like to see more of in theory, and here's some OTHER stuff that came up:
having multiple trans characters, and especially multiple characters who experience their transness in similar ways. When personal information about being trans come up, it's easier to avoid it feeling like a trans person "explaining" themselves to a cis person. (You don't need to Explain how/why you are Like That, the existence of trans folks does not need to be justified.)
An example: Two genderfluid characters discussing how they organize those clothes based on how they feel about their gender on a particular day. This can easily fall into examples of "showing transness only by external cues", but like, idk, that's a "be careful" thing more than a "NEVER MENTION EXTERNAL STUFF, EVER" thing. Another example: Two trans characters who bond over some sort of "you too?" moment.
Having someone who is trans be a main character, or POV character. There are a lot of aspects to someone's identity that are internal, so having access to their internal thoughts makes it easier to mention in a casual way.
A recurring thing that came up was essentially "have trans characters exist and talk/think about their experiences that involve their gender". This would be with another trans character, internally, or someone who is cis...but that can fall into sounding like the trans character is having an Educational Moment and eh, it can get awkward and weird and uncomfortable.
It's hard to conjure specific examples (without shamelessly plugging my own stuff ah-hahahaha) out of thin air because being trans (especially non-binary) tends to undermine a common idea about gender: that there's Being a Man or Being a Woman and there's some kind of "universal manhood" or "universal womanhood". Neither of those things exist b/c how people express their gender can vary by so many factors. Trans women and trans men are still men and woman, but their experiences of being a man or woman will be different than someone who is cisgender. Being non-binary (which is IDing as outside the gender binary where Man Or Woman are your only options) is a different way of being trans.
I will use one personal example b/c it's easy to talk about: The current project I'm working on with emmych has trans main characters, one of them who neither of us can pin a better label on than "absolutely not a cis woman". She goes by she/her pronouns, but uses male forms of address and openly prefers androgyny so there's a lot of ways you could potentially describe that but we don't go into it in-game since that's not what it's about. However, even if we don't explicitly define the state of her gender identity, there should be enough cues like her preference in address that indicate there's more to the story.
Sorry about how blathering this is! This post is the result of me trying to synthesize/summarize like three separate long conversations. And also inserting just my own personal 2 cents here and there.
I went and asked some Certified Trans Friends (five ppl including myself, and we're all non-binary trans. idk i never feel comfortable if it feels like im speaking for all trans folks/binary trans folks especially, so take this with a grain of salt and all) and like...things that came up about "how do you show a character is trans" question:
One reason it can seem daunting is that most media depictions of transness focus on external cues, like how someone is dressed or what they look like. This is hard to do without displaying common stereotypes (ah, she's a trans woman so...we need to show her putting on makeup! because women wear makeup!) You run into a lot of gross potential for things like "she looks like a man" and this furthers the idea that there are inherent """"biological"""" aspects that "reveal" someone's gender and like...ugh. It's a minefield. Hard to write.
The other way that someone is shown as trans is usually through violence, physical, verbal, social, whatever. This is just depressing, quite frankly. Yes, you can communicate that someone is trans by having another character misgendering them and being corrected, but this is often a sour note for trans folks in your audience. Personally, I would be okay with someone who might not look what you expect for their gender being referred to by correct pronouns by the people around them (and this isn't the punchline to a joke)
It'd be cool to see more things like fantasy Hormone Replacement Therapy, or magic being used for gender-related reasons. There's all kinds of potential to mention mundane details that don't necessarily focus on a character's physical experience. The example you gave, like mentioning a woman who shaves, could work in certain circumstances. Yes, that's a reality for some women, but it's easy to be perceived as a punchline...
Which is kind of the thing. Because of how negative trans depictions usually are, it's hard to build a mental library of "good" references. And when you go to do your own writing, having nothing but negative examples to pull from makes it hard. I wish I had something I could point to as a good example of "here's how to show a character is trans when the media in question is not about being trans", but none of us had examples off the top of our head. We did talk about our own work or things we'd like to see more of in theory, and here's some OTHER stuff that came up:
having multiple trans characters, and especially multiple characters who experience their transness in similar ways. When personal information about being trans come up, it's easier to avoid it feeling like a trans person "explaining" themselves to a cis person. (You don't need to Explain how/why you are Like That, the existence of trans folks does not need to be justified.)
An example: Two genderfluid characters discussing how they organize those clothes based on how they feel about their gender on a particular day. This can easily fall into examples of "showing transness only by external cues", but like, idk, that's a "be careful" thing more than a "NEVER MENTION EXTERNAL STUFF, EVER" thing. Another example: Two trans characters who bond over some sort of "you too?" moment.
Having someone who is trans be a main character, or POV character. There are a lot of aspects to someone's identity that are internal, so having access to their internal thoughts makes it easier to mention in a casual way.
A recurring thing that came up was essentially "have trans characters exist and talk/think about their experiences that involve their gender". This would be with another trans character, internally, or someone who is cis...but that can fall into sounding like the trans character is having an Educational Moment and eh, it can get awkward and weird and uncomfortable.
It's hard to conjure specific examples (without shamelessly plugging my own stuff ah-hahahaha) out of thin air because being trans (especially non-binary) tends to undermine a common idea about gender: that there's Being a Man or Being a Woman and there's some kind of "universal manhood" or "universal womanhood". Neither of those things exist b/c how people express their gender can vary by so many factors. Trans women and trans men are still men and woman, but their experiences of being a man or woman will be different than someone who is cisgender. Being non-binary (which is IDing as outside the gender binary where Man Or Woman are your only options) is a different way of being trans.
I will use one personal example b/c it's easy to talk about: The current project I'm working on with emmych has trans main characters, one of them who neither of us can pin a better label on than "absolutely not a cis woman". She goes by she/her pronouns, but uses male forms of address and openly prefers androgyny so there's a lot of ways you could potentially describe that but we don't go into it in-game since that's not what it's about. However, even if we don't explicitly define the state of her gender identity, there should be enough cues like her preference in address that indicate there's more to the story.
Sorry about how blathering this is! This post is the result of me trying to synthesize/summarize like three separate long conversations. And also inserting just my own personal 2 cents here and there.
Edit: Welp! Since since this posts didn't get deleted, I'll use this space to spare some vagrant thoughts about "character entitlement".
First of all, I think we can all understand why people don't like to see changes made in "their" characters, right? I think we've all been there.... But it's also important to understand that, even if it looks that way, people raising concerns about a character looking/being a certain way, doesn't necessarily mean they harbor resentment towards anyone else. People overall are very accepting of new characters that belong to all kinds of demographics, so, that's the wrong conclusion to make. And I would like to ask anyone who may feel bad about this, to not let their feelings of hurt cloud their judgement.
That being said. What's the counterargument? Well, you have to make people understand that those characters don't belong to "them". That they belong to their creators, and that they're perfectly free to make any changes they please. It's Ok, for them to voice their opinions, but it's not Ok to try to exert pressure on the creators to reverse (or make) changes. Or to take those frustration on the people that those characters cater to. It's not them they're upset about.
And in the case of those changes being the result of some kind of "social pressure", well, that needs to be proved. And if there's no conclusive evidence about it, then that can be swiftly dismissed... And you know what? Even if that were true, there's still some or all of the creator's own agency involved in that decision, and as such, it begets respect. It would be hypocritical to say you're for "artistic freedom" and "personal choices" only when things go your way.
I think these words would ring true among most people who complain about "political correctness" and whatnot. I'm one of them. =B
First of all, I think we can all understand why people don't like to see changes made in "their" characters, right? I think we've all been there.... But it's also important to understand that, even if it looks that way, people raising concerns about a character looking/being a certain way, doesn't necessarily mean they harbor resentment towards anyone else. People overall are very accepting of new characters that belong to all kinds of demographics, so, that's the wrong conclusion to make. And I would like to ask anyone who may feel bad about this, to not let their feelings of hurt cloud their judgement.
That being said. What's the counterargument? Well, you have to make people understand that those characters don't belong to "them". That they belong to their creators, and that they're perfectly free to make any changes they please. It's Ok, for them to voice their opinions, but it's not Ok to try to exert pressure on the creators to reverse (or make) changes. Or to take those frustration on the people that those characters cater to. It's not them they're upset about.
And in the case of those changes being the result of some kind of "social pressure", well, that needs to be proved. And if there's no conclusive evidence about it, then that can be swiftly dismissed... And you know what? Even if that were true, there's still some or all of the creator's own agency involved in that decision, and as such, it begets respect. It would be hypocritical to say you're for "artistic freedom" and "personal choices" only when things go your way.
I think these words would ring true among most people who complain about "political correctness" and whatnot. I'm one of them. =B
El_WaKa
3568
author=mawk
Max, I think you've proven at this point that you can't actually post on this topic (any topic, maybe?) without going on a lengthy tangent about how terrible you think feminists are.
Damn, you don't have to get so defensive just because you don't agree with someone's opinion
Personally, I agree with Max, isn't actually more racist to add a black person just "because the game needs more minorities" than not having any at all?
I care more about the personality of the characters, what is the point of having women, black, gays, fat, etc. persons if their only trait is "look! He's gay!"?
And about League of Legends, I can see why many get mad over that, is a character that has been in the game for a long time and most people don't like the new design, besides, who cares if most the women in LoL are sexualized and without personality? The game is made for young boys of age 12-15, they are attracted to boobs like flies to honey, Riot games obviously wants more players (and more money), if they add a trans character only a few people would care, if they add another sexy character they would grab the interest of 85% of their players
LoL sucks anyway, dota is better
author=El_WaKa
I care more about the personality of the characters, what is the point of having women, black, gays, fat, etc. persons if their only trait is "look! He's gay!"?
Why are you assuming that's the only character trait they'll have?
author=El_WaKa
And about League of Legends, I can see why many get mad over that, is a character that has been in the game for a long time and most people don't like the new design, besides, who cares if most the women in LoL are sexualized and without personality? The game is made for young boys of age 12-15, they are attracted to boobs like flies to honey, Riot games obviously wants more players (and more money), if they add a trans character only a few people would care, if they add another sexy character they would grab the interest of 85% of their players
LoL sucks anyway, dota is better
Except they already have the attention of all those boys with the many sexy characters they already have. Now adding new ones would only expand their fanbase.
Plus, thinking nobody cares is .. people like me? Thinking I have no right to ask for or want anything is quite insulting.
I get your point, but .. welp.
Everyone can agree that adding token characters void of any personality is silly. But you are the one jumping to the conclusion that just adding a rarer trait will make the rest of their character a cardboard.
There's a difference between token character and adding more diversity. Token character is basically "this is the one black guy to shut people up" versus "this is Jack who is a teacher and has raised the hero from birth. he's also black. Oh and this is Tina who is the general of the army who is conflicted by her orders and must choose between her family and doing the right thing. Oh and she's black too. And this is Emanuel who was an orphan and raised by a thief. He hates carrots and rich people. Also? Black. Oh and this is..."
Just because you can write white characters doesn't mean you should only write white characters. It doesn't take much to learn a bit more about other people's cultures and use them in your writing to add a more racially and culturally diverse world. It's your world and you create the rules. If you have a desert world with only white people, you're being stupid and more racist - there's a reason for skin colour and it correlates with genetics and habitat.
I mean, look, Fallout did a good job adding racial diversity - especially 3 - and it's not something that is actually shoved in your face as "THIS IS A BLACK PERSON!!!". It's a case of people just being people, characters being characters, and their skin colour not being 'A THING'.
Quite frankly write any character and then change their skin colour. That is how you make your story racially diverse. That's all you fucking need to do. Really. Even easier if you're not writing based on Earth - you create the colour of your characters. Seriously, you're making it out to be this huge fucking deal when it's as simple as changing their skin colour and bam, diversity. They don't need to act different or be different in any other way - they're people and every person is their own character.
They don't need to suddenly talk in ghetto speak or allude to the tragic life they had growing up in a juvenile centre or dealing with gang culture just because they happen to be black. They can be the same fucking person they were before because people are people and the colour of skin only makes a difference in your writing IF YOU MAKE IT.
Just because you can write white characters doesn't mean you should only write white characters. It doesn't take much to learn a bit more about other people's cultures and use them in your writing to add a more racially and culturally diverse world. It's your world and you create the rules. If you have a desert world with only white people, you're being stupid and more racist - there's a reason for skin colour and it correlates with genetics and habitat.
I mean, look, Fallout did a good job adding racial diversity - especially 3 - and it's not something that is actually shoved in your face as "THIS IS A BLACK PERSON!!!". It's a case of people just being people, characters being characters, and their skin colour not being 'A THING'.
Quite frankly write any character and then change their skin colour. That is how you make your story racially diverse. That's all you fucking need to do. Really. Even easier if you're not writing based on Earth - you create the colour of your characters. Seriously, you're making it out to be this huge fucking deal when it's as simple as changing their skin colour and bam, diversity. They don't need to act different or be different in any other way - they're people and every person is their own character.
They don't need to suddenly talk in ghetto speak or allude to the tragic life they had growing up in a juvenile centre or dealing with gang culture just because they happen to be black. They can be the same fucking person they were before because people are people and the colour of skin only makes a difference in your writing IF YOU MAKE IT.
Tyranos
1115
author=Max McGee
Can someone meaningfully explain to me what is "hegemonic" about this portrayal of the character?
No they can't. Because it's not. The OP has proven themselves unable to within several posts even and has used a lot of buzzwords but little else. Also me pointing out that there are women out there who accept the white knight behavior is apparently creepy. Sorry for stating reality to you.
In the end I still think the big issue is people getting upset about a character being changed to be ugly simply because it's a female. That speaks loudly of the mental status of not only everyone in this country but the people on this site who've pretty much had the same amount of luck as the OP in "proving" anything at all here. Oh well another episode for me.
*sighs* there's a limit to what i can take of absolutely oblivious and reactionry thinking, and i'm reaching it fast, but before that happens, let me try to address some concerns.
@max mcgee, i'm using fcking adorno as my primary reference. like, really, please go on how you think that feminism is without merit, that's on you. but that's only on you, and that's your problem, not mine, and your entitlement, and since it's not about me, but rather, about your resistance to take every single paradigm that do not center you seriously and complain that you won't understand, i'll stop here. my first field is not feminism, my first field is race studies, particularly critical theory. i deal with, and i have suggested as readings, specifically for you, i believe, of both goffman's stigma - which is understood as a seminal work in understanding social discrimination - and said's orientalism - which is cornerstone for the entire field of post colonialist studies and media critique - and if that isn't a demonstration good enough that you've been acting on your bias only, instead of actually trying to parse the information i'm suggesting you, then, my dear, there's nothing more for me to say. mayhap, there are. the keyword here are cognitive dissonance and dunning-kruger effect.
then, because i'm feeling very, very generous with your entire epistemic violence with me, particularly, and the whole collection of fields that focus on questioning hegemonic narratives, this is about the idea that you can create a character without taking into account the social forces that exist around you: it doesn't happen. that's because, as brunner would put, culture is a narrative toolbox for engaging with the world. if our western culture, in a broad stroak of paint, is ripe with epistemic violence against marginalized people, there's no way in fucking hell your very cognitive processes don't reproduce it. that's one of the points of questioning this. because all of our cognitive processes have been socialized to reproduce this models and structures, and as such it's important to question what we do, instead of just doing. if you're feeling particularly interested (a, you aren't; b, i know), you should read the social construction of reality, by berger and luckmann. it's a great reading.
now, so that this is very clear? i finish addressing you here until i have any kind of indication that even suggests that you are attempting to understand this on my terms. i mean, if you're trying to address my point, the very least you can try before disagreeing is understanding my point - i really can't believe that this very singular and important part of the scientific process was forgotten. go do your work, yes?
@alterego, max has been breaking down things, among others, my wish to keep engaging, because he is, in stance and content, very similar to many of the people that have been harassing people like me out of making games, and this has me very fcking frightened. so i'll be counting that.
with that said, white supremacy, dehumanization, patriarchy, ciscentrism, able discourse. you folks never attempted to undertand them, right? i mean, it's of very bad faith, to come here and complain because you do not agree with fields and knowledge you don't know about enough, so i'm both very sorry for you, and very not sorry. i have given a list of authors and books here, because i'm very much academic in this sense. want to try arguing? get at least the very basic understanding on, and then come back.
which, begs the addition here, i HATE having to just go "study more" to half the answers to my thread, but i have no reason to do the emotional labor to coddle your very reasonable and very answerable concerns when half the things i'm talking about are available for free on the internet and have been commented greatly upon for the last eighty years, at least, and the other half is just have been directly addressed by these very commenters. it fells sad to see that you truly believe that your entitlement to have information handled to you trumps my emotional and health needs, so go do your fcking job and fcking educate yourself.
*deep breath*
where was i. el_waka, the only defensive people here are max and crew. your bias is making you see things. tokenism has been addressed here, and can be researched upon. you're seeing actual, real people having their stories told as a chore, so step back, access it, and try to understand why. also, to say "blacks, gays, fats" in this kind of discourse is dehumanizing and offensive, you should look up to why. about riot games, a. you missed the point entirely, b. that's not the game's demographics. at least, try to get your information right.
@kylaila, hey there o/ their point here is, why representate at all? this is a poor point, and as such, shouldn't be engaged at all.
@liberty, that's a good point, i feel. even thought you can't just write then decide upon colour, because ignoring their real world racial dynamics is crude, and one can do better, but you're more or less right there.
@tyranos, great going there. to mistake my adherence to a specific framework with a specific technical language as incompetence? good. to believe i have to explain something i have given, more than once, tools for understanding because you don't understand and as such the world has to revolve around you? very good. to actually believe that one can state reality while forgetting that all theory is but a description of reality and as such any discussion of social studies must be made with the perspective of never having an actual, absolute truth, because that's impossible and because in the end, there are many interpretations upon a given fact? really weights on your side. since you haven't come here to debate, and more to state 'reality', let me give you a suggestion: get out and do something more productive with your life. at this point, what you've been doing is derailing - explained by the very simple fact that the people who understood my question and statements are still going at it, which means it's not about not being able to be understood, but rather about you don't understanding, and that doesn't make a point unworthy of being made, nor forces us, specially not me, of having to stop everything to coddle to your needs.
also, the fact that you believe the outrage is because a 'female' was made 'ugly', a. you're part of the problem, b. you're oblivious to the problem, and c. you're not welcome here with this kind of language. put 'female' with any degree of unironic intent in any part of my thread again, and i'll be asking a mod to take action, because if you don't understand why a trans woman would object to biologically reducing language, you don't need to be here - neither i have to read your words. shoo.
before going any further, i have to remind people that a big part of the scientific method is asking oneself constantly "where am i wrong". why? because if you start any kind of attempt at understanding something being certain that you are right, you won't get it. and you'll fall in confirmation bias, in dunning-kruger effect, and other very good, very interesting cognitive bias to know about, but not to reproduce. so, intead of asking me "why don't you explain to me", try asking yourself why you don't get it, and, if it bothers you, work to get it. this is my last word on this matter.
i have an important reunion in half an hour, so i won't be adressing pentagonbuddy and liberty points entirely now - even because addressing everyone else was fucking exhausting and i just woke up, but pentagonbuddy have a great point here, go read them. see you folks later.
@max mcgee, i'm using fcking adorno as my primary reference. like, really, please go on how you think that feminism is without merit, that's on you. but that's only on you, and that's your problem, not mine, and your entitlement, and since it's not about me, but rather, about your resistance to take every single paradigm that do not center you seriously and complain that you won't understand, i'll stop here. my first field is not feminism, my first field is race studies, particularly critical theory. i deal with, and i have suggested as readings, specifically for you, i believe, of both goffman's stigma - which is understood as a seminal work in understanding social discrimination - and said's orientalism - which is cornerstone for the entire field of post colonialist studies and media critique - and if that isn't a demonstration good enough that you've been acting on your bias only, instead of actually trying to parse the information i'm suggesting you, then, my dear, there's nothing more for me to say. mayhap, there are. the keyword here are cognitive dissonance and dunning-kruger effect.
then, because i'm feeling very, very generous with your entire epistemic violence with me, particularly, and the whole collection of fields that focus on questioning hegemonic narratives, this is about the idea that you can create a character without taking into account the social forces that exist around you: it doesn't happen. that's because, as brunner would put, culture is a narrative toolbox for engaging with the world. if our western culture, in a broad stroak of paint, is ripe with epistemic violence against marginalized people, there's no way in fucking hell your very cognitive processes don't reproduce it. that's one of the points of questioning this. because all of our cognitive processes have been socialized to reproduce this models and structures, and as such it's important to question what we do, instead of just doing. if you're feeling particularly interested (a, you aren't; b, i know), you should read the social construction of reality, by berger and luckmann. it's a great reading.
now, so that this is very clear? i finish addressing you here until i have any kind of indication that even suggests that you are attempting to understand this on my terms. i mean, if you're trying to address my point, the very least you can try before disagreeing is understanding my point - i really can't believe that this very singular and important part of the scientific process was forgotten. go do your work, yes?
@alterego, max has been breaking down things, among others, my wish to keep engaging, because he is, in stance and content, very similar to many of the people that have been harassing people like me out of making games, and this has me very fcking frightened. so i'll be counting that.
with that said, white supremacy, dehumanization, patriarchy, ciscentrism, able discourse. you folks never attempted to undertand them, right? i mean, it's of very bad faith, to come here and complain because you do not agree with fields and knowledge you don't know about enough, so i'm both very sorry for you, and very not sorry. i have given a list of authors and books here, because i'm very much academic in this sense. want to try arguing? get at least the very basic understanding on, and then come back.
which, begs the addition here, i HATE having to just go "study more" to half the answers to my thread, but i have no reason to do the emotional labor to coddle your very reasonable and very answerable concerns when half the things i'm talking about are available for free on the internet and have been commented greatly upon for the last eighty years, at least, and the other half is just have been directly addressed by these very commenters. it fells sad to see that you truly believe that your entitlement to have information handled to you trumps my emotional and health needs, so go do your fcking job and fcking educate yourself.
*deep breath*
where was i. el_waka, the only defensive people here are max and crew. your bias is making you see things. tokenism has been addressed here, and can be researched upon. you're seeing actual, real people having their stories told as a chore, so step back, access it, and try to understand why. also, to say "blacks, gays, fats" in this kind of discourse is dehumanizing and offensive, you should look up to why. about riot games, a. you missed the point entirely, b. that's not the game's demographics. at least, try to get your information right.
@kylaila, hey there o/ their point here is, why representate at all? this is a poor point, and as such, shouldn't be engaged at all.
@liberty, that's a good point, i feel. even thought you can't just write then decide upon colour, because ignoring their real world racial dynamics is crude, and one can do better, but you're more or less right there.
@tyranos, great going there. to mistake my adherence to a specific framework with a specific technical language as incompetence? good. to believe i have to explain something i have given, more than once, tools for understanding because you don't understand and as such the world has to revolve around you? very good. to actually believe that one can state reality while forgetting that all theory is but a description of reality and as such any discussion of social studies must be made with the perspective of never having an actual, absolute truth, because that's impossible and because in the end, there are many interpretations upon a given fact? really weights on your side. since you haven't come here to debate, and more to state 'reality', let me give you a suggestion: get out and do something more productive with your life. at this point, what you've been doing is derailing - explained by the very simple fact that the people who understood my question and statements are still going at it, which means it's not about not being able to be understood, but rather about you don't understanding, and that doesn't make a point unworthy of being made, nor forces us, specially not me, of having to stop everything to coddle to your needs.
also, the fact that you believe the outrage is because a 'female' was made 'ugly', a. you're part of the problem, b. you're oblivious to the problem, and c. you're not welcome here with this kind of language. put 'female' with any degree of unironic intent in any part of my thread again, and i'll be asking a mod to take action, because if you don't understand why a trans woman would object to biologically reducing language, you don't need to be here - neither i have to read your words. shoo.
before going any further, i have to remind people that a big part of the scientific method is asking oneself constantly "where am i wrong". why? because if you start any kind of attempt at understanding something being certain that you are right, you won't get it. and you'll fall in confirmation bias, in dunning-kruger effect, and other very good, very interesting cognitive bias to know about, but not to reproduce. so, intead of asking me "why don't you explain to me", try asking yourself why you don't get it, and, if it bothers you, work to get it. this is my last word on this matter.
i have an important reunion in half an hour, so i won't be adressing pentagonbuddy and liberty points entirely now - even because addressing everyone else was fucking exhausting and i just woke up, but pentagonbuddy have a great point here, go read them. see you folks later.
I disagree - for the most part it depends on the story and what you want to portray in it, but race only becomes an issue if you write about it being an issue. If you're writing modern or historical stories, then fair enough - you have to take that into context, but adding characters to a game where you create the world? The history of the races of that world ARE YOURS TO CREATE. This means you can have black and grey and green without racial issues popping up left, right and center. Sci-fi? Racial identity is only an issue if you write it to be one. It's what you write that changes how race is handled but it doesn't take much to add a racial group to your writing. Go out there and fucking talk to people - I know there are people on this site from almost every race on the planet. Fucking ask them shit. Don't use 'I don't know' as a fucking excuse.
Also, I'll agree with Max that you're talking too obtuse. I'm not reading all that just so that a point is made. Fucking dumb it down so that the general 15 year old can understand it. I, too, want to be able to understand shit without dealing with bullshit spiels even if I might agree with them. I don't want to read a fucking novel just to understand what you mean by one fucking thing. Dumb. It. Down.
I shouldn't need a fucking doctorate to decipher what you're writing, ffs.
Also, I'll agree with Max that you're talking too obtuse. I'm not reading all that just so that a point is made. Fucking dumb it down so that the general 15 year old can understand it. I, too, want to be able to understand shit without dealing with bullshit spiels even if I might agree with them. I don't want to read a fucking novel just to understand what you mean by one fucking thing. Dumb. It. Down.
I shouldn't need a fucking doctorate to decipher what you're writing, ffs.
El_WaKa
3568
These kind of threads always cause problems, because apparently disagreeing with tumblr means that you are a monster, don't have a soul and should be erased of the planet
Heck, I'm a latino which lives in a kinda poor part of the town, and I still don't care about all of this, even when all the games and movies thinks "latino = mexican"
Heck, I'm a latino which lives in a kinda poor part of the town, and I still don't care about all of this, even when all the games and movies thinks "latino = mexican"
author=Liberty
I disagree - for the most part it depends on the story and what you want to portray in it, but race only becomes an issue if you write about it being an issue. If you're writing modern or historical stories, then fair enough - you have to take that into context, but adding characters to a game where you create the world? The history of the races of that world ARE YOURS TO CREATE. This means you can have black and grey and green without racial issues popping up left, right and center. Sci-fi? Racial identity is only an issue if you write it to be one. It's what you write that changes how race is handled but it doesn't take much to add a racial group to your writing. Go out there and fucking talk to people - I know there are people on this site from almost every race on the planet. Fucking ask them shit. Don't use 'I don't know' as a fucking excuse.
then you're missing the point of representing people. to represent people, you need to address their lifes. that's why it's so hard, to write narratives of people who are marginalized. because being marginalize implies in having your value reduced, and as such their stories happen to start mattering less. to simply avoid dealing with how our world influences in these narratives, to me, it's an easy way out, specially when you're not a part of these groups. so, if you want to talk about a trans feminine person in a scenario which being trans feminine is a possible thing, you better address our existencial dread and hopelessness, because else i just won't see a trans feminine person there. also, having marginalized groups in your personal narrative which are different than our societies marginalized groups is understood as problematic, to say the least. you're co-opting narratives. that's why, merit where is due, the x-men are a very limited way to addressing racial inequality - the narrative which inspired it. because, if black people could fly and use optic beams, things would be very, very different, so.
author=Liberty
Also, I'll agree with Max that you're talking too obtuse. I'm not reading all that just so that a point is made. Fucking dumb it down so that the general 15 year old can understand it. I, too, want to be able to understand shit without dealing with bullshit spiels even if I might agree with them. I don't want to read a fucking novel just to understand what you mean by one fucking thing. Dumb. It. Down.
I shouldn't need a fucking doctorate to decipher what you're writing, ffs.
fair point. but there's a significative difference between asking me to explain something you don't understand, and disagreeing, then complaining you don't understand. with that said, hegemonic is any perspective that is so normalized in a culture that it becomes regarded as natural, and epistemic violence is the kind of violence that exist in the conception of people as a concepts and serves as base to all kinds of violence - they become justified on their previous dehumanization. also, male gaze is a concept complex to explain, but can be resumed into an idea of what men would like to see which in turn models our representation and presentation of the world around it. for examples of all of these, googling the words tend to be enough, there are a lot of people explaining them; for example, why boobs and breasts, rubber spine, vacuum sealed fiora is hegemonic depends on knowledge of the male gaze as a concept to make sense, as well as the belief that patriarchy exists, for starters. i can't convince him of neither, nor should i be expected to, and his stance thus far suggests that he doesn't come from a place of attempting to understand, but that may be just mine and some other people here parsing of it. the fact that people are decrying my point because they are too 'tumblr-like' is enough evidence, to me, that there's no predisposition to dialogue, and they're not entitled to my time and attention to this degree. if they want to invalidate my point because i'm not being 'logical', or 'academic', or 'too tumblr-like', the only thing i have for them is academic texts. if, in contrast, you really can't understand a term, or how an idea articulate, and i identify that you're interested enough, be sure, i'm gonna take a long time making sure you have access to clear explanations which can then be expanded in more complete views. am i being too unreasonable, here?
EDIT: also, regarding male gaze, we're talking about a conceptual man, not all men. this is an important distinction to make, because these theories rely on understand the way by why we conceptualize things influence how things are. we call this social construction of reality. toni d'orsay has a good text on it, i can fetch for you when i come back from my thingie.
SnowOwl
5188
@WetMattos
I'm not going to comment on the content of your spiel, because I'd probably be asked to leave again, but... Can't you write so that I don't get a headache trying to understand what you are saying? I'm not sure if you were trying to dumb it down there, but I'm not seeing it. It's not only the way you're using words nobody ever uses, but also how you structure your sentences really weirdly. Sidenote, you can't really expect people to read a book (or several for every post you make, it seems) about something just to understand one small part of some point you're making.
I'm not going to comment on the content of your spiel, because I'd probably be asked to leave again, but... Can't you write so that I don't get a headache trying to understand what you are saying? I'm not sure if you were trying to dumb it down there, but I'm not seeing it. It's not only the way you're using words nobody ever uses, but also how you structure your sentences really weirdly. Sidenote, you can't really expect people to read a book (or several for every post you make, it seems) about something just to understand one small part of some point you're making.
EdgeOfChaos
1755
So an SJW, Max McGee, and a moderator walk into a bar...
(serious): Can you please use normal terms to explain your position? I could play bullshit buzzword bingo with those posts of yours. Probably very few people here have majored in women's studies, so this is the equivalent of me using some complex programming concept unnecessarily to explain how to do something in RPGMaker, or Sated using some synthetic chemistry analogy to explain his position. No one's going to read an essay, fyi.
For example: instead of "male gaze" and the conceptual man to explain why a company does something, you could just say "because men like it". You don't even need D'Orsay's essay to understand that.
(serious): Can you please use normal terms to explain your position? I could play bullshit buzzword bingo with those posts of yours. Probably very few people here have majored in women's studies, so this is the equivalent of me using some complex programming concept unnecessarily to explain how to do something in RPGMaker, or Sated using some synthetic chemistry analogy to explain his position. No one's going to read an essay, fyi.
author=WetMattos
also, regarding male gaze, we're talking about a conceptual man, not all men. this is an important distinction to make, because these theories rely on understand the way by why we conceptualize things influence how things are. we call this social construction of reality. toni d'orsay has a good text on it, i can fetch for you when i come back from my thingie.
For example: instead of "male gaze" and the conceptual man to explain why a company does something, you could just say "because men like it". You don't even need D'Orsay's essay to understand that.
I have no idea what you're saying because, again, I refuse to read large-ass paragraphs with little-to-no punctuation. I don't like text blocks. Break that shit up.
Also, your buzzwords mean nothing here. Jargon is great when you're talking to people who know what the fuck you're talking about but using it around people who have no idea what it means (or what you mean by it in the context you're using it) is like speaking a whole other language. I'm not going to try and decypher that shit.
Lastly, no. Sorry. I don't buy the idea that representation is about pointing out peoples' lives and shit. I agree that representation matters and it matters a lot but your idea of what representation is and mine is completely different. To me it's not about making people out to be like they are viewed in the media.
For me it's about creating a character that you can admire whose racial identity doesn't matter - to anyone. They are black/white/purple and it doesn't matter that they are that. Like I said - if you're writing about historical or modern shit, then racial tensions can be an issue, but if you're not then you have the freedom to not make that a thing and to just focus on creating a character who is awesome and ignoring the race card.
Ideally, race doesn't even enter into the picture at all unless it is necessary to the story in some way. I have a lesbian character who is black. She's strong, capable and came from parents who were slaves but were released. She doesn't dwell on that. She doesn't talk about shit like that because what matters is who she is, not where she came from.
She is black, she is strong, she is empowered and she is a great example of representation because she shows that your past doesn't matter - you can be amazing no matter what your race, what your gender, what your sexuality. The adversity isn't her race, her gender or her sexuality. The adversity is something else completely.
Like I pointed out before - great examples of racial diversity in a game is the Fallout series. Black people exist. Chinese people exist. Races exist and there's no allusion to their being of those races - the just are. And they are awesome, not because of their race but because of who they are.
Those are the characters people should focus on writing and stop being racist by treating a black character different to how they treat a white one. Make a character and don't focus on their race - people are more than that.
Much, much more.
Also, your buzzwords mean nothing here. Jargon is great when you're talking to people who know what the fuck you're talking about but using it around people who have no idea what it means (or what you mean by it in the context you're using it) is like speaking a whole other language. I'm not going to try and decypher that shit.
Lastly, no. Sorry. I don't buy the idea that representation is about pointing out peoples' lives and shit. I agree that representation matters and it matters a lot but your idea of what representation is and mine is completely different. To me it's not about making people out to be like they are viewed in the media.
For me it's about creating a character that you can admire whose racial identity doesn't matter - to anyone. They are black/white/purple and it doesn't matter that they are that. Like I said - if you're writing about historical or modern shit, then racial tensions can be an issue, but if you're not then you have the freedom to not make that a thing and to just focus on creating a character who is awesome and ignoring the race card.
Ideally, race doesn't even enter into the picture at all unless it is necessary to the story in some way. I have a lesbian character who is black. She's strong, capable and came from parents who were slaves but were released. She doesn't dwell on that. She doesn't talk about shit like that because what matters is who she is, not where she came from.
She is black, she is strong, she is empowered and she is a great example of representation because she shows that your past doesn't matter - you can be amazing no matter what your race, what your gender, what your sexuality. The adversity isn't her race, her gender or her sexuality. The adversity is something else completely.
Like I pointed out before - great examples of racial diversity in a game is the Fallout series. Black people exist. Chinese people exist. Races exist and there's no allusion to their being of those races - the just are. And they are awesome, not because of their race but because of who they are.
Those are the characters people should focus on writing and stop being racist by treating a black character different to how they treat a white one. Make a character and don't focus on their race - people are more than that.
Much, much more.
Blind
2262
author=Liberty
Like I pointed out before - great examples of racial diversity in a game is the Fallout series. Black people exist. Chinese people exist. Races exist and there's no allusion to their being of those races - the just are. And they are awesome, not because of their race but because of who they are.
Agreed with this point.
I honestly don't believe characters in any literary medium are necessarily required to "represent" any particular plight or heritage. And I say this as an openly gay male.
Let's take Legend of Korra for example, which was recently applauded as being a highly subversive children's show. Was it intriguing and powerful to have two strong women, intelligent and unstereotyped, to ultimately end in a gay relationship (for the first time in a children's medium)? Sure. Was that the sole redeeming factor of the show - the reason it was widely applauded even long before it's shocking finale? No way.
Let your characters be human. Being black, gay, female, trans, or otherwise is wonderful in a predominantly white/male jRPG landscape, but IMO that should never be all there is to them. It's more insulting to the group of people you've attempted to represent then it is flattering.
Korra is a great example, though. Korra is dark skinned, a powerful woman and bi-sexual. Is that what makes her a great character? No. The story doesn't even focus on those things much, if at all. Her race isn't in question. Her gender isn't in question. Her sexuality isn't in question. None of that matters at all in the show and she is an incredible representation of all three groups. Because of who she is, not what she is.
Don't focus on the what unless it is important to the story. Focus on the who. That is how you make representatives.
Don't focus on the what unless it is important to the story. Focus on the who. That is how you make representatives.
'Hegemonic' means 'dominant,' particularly in terms of perception. Hegemonic masculinity, for instance, means that men are expected to be strong, tough, and not worry about dumb things like feelings. Hegemonic femininity holds that women should be pretty and maternal. It's okay to challenge both of these stereotypes.
'Male gaze' is the tendency in media for the camera or the author's description to focus on appealing traits of the female body, like a slow pan up of the heroine's outrageously sexy figure.
'Patriarchy' basically means that men are the dominant gender, and will, in general, take steps to ensure they remain so, sometimes without even realizing it.
'Marginalized' means to have their role or presence downplayed in a work. It is common for people of color, LGBTQ individuals, or people who don't engage in hetero-normative behavior to be marginalized in works of fiction.
These are all pretty common terms thrown around in these sorts of debates. If you don't know what something means, the whole internet is available to you. If you wish to participate in this discussion it helps to have a grasp of the basics. Being educated in these concepts is a great first step.
If you don't like this discussion, if it makes you angry, if it makes you want to call people names or tell them they shouldn't be talking about this, you can choose not to participate. If you're incapable of doing that, we're happy to make that decision for you.
'Male gaze' is the tendency in media for the camera or the author's description to focus on appealing traits of the female body, like a slow pan up of the heroine's outrageously sexy figure.
'Patriarchy' basically means that men are the dominant gender, and will, in general, take steps to ensure they remain so, sometimes without even realizing it.
'Marginalized' means to have their role or presence downplayed in a work. It is common for people of color, LGBTQ individuals, or people who don't engage in hetero-normative behavior to be marginalized in works of fiction.
These are all pretty common terms thrown around in these sorts of debates. If you don't know what something means, the whole internet is available to you. If you wish to participate in this discussion it helps to have a grasp of the basics. Being educated in these concepts is a great first step.
If you don't like this discussion, if it makes you angry, if it makes you want to call people names or tell them they shouldn't be talking about this, you can choose not to participate. If you're incapable of doing that, we're happy to make that decision for you.
who the fuck let tumblr in here.
I myself have considered the possibility I'm transgendered, but responsibilities elsewhere means I don't think much about it, I'll probably give myself some thorough introspection next year after my course is over.
This seems awfully silly, like yeah they made Jaina in World of Warcraft look like a slut and i hated it since she's a pretty innocent character, then she got shit as a character too, I just turned my focus to other not-shit characters.
That said, LoL is a bit different due to the way the game is dependant on players mastering characters, if you can't stand the way your character looks suddenly I guess that'd be lame.
Hell if they changed my Ahri i'd be pissed, or would be if i actually played lol, only reason Ahri is a character i know about is because imageboards often have some really nice concepts of her.
That said I didn't have time to read all of the first post either so maybe I'm fucking up or missing a step here.
I myself have considered the possibility I'm transgendered, but responsibilities elsewhere means I don't think much about it, I'll probably give myself some thorough introspection next year after my course is over.
This seems awfully silly, like yeah they made Jaina in World of Warcraft look like a slut and i hated it since she's a pretty innocent character, then she got shit as a character too, I just turned my focus to other not-shit characters.
That said, LoL is a bit different due to the way the game is dependant on players mastering characters, if you can't stand the way your character looks suddenly I guess that'd be lame.
Hell if they changed my Ahri i'd be pissed, or would be if i actually played lol, only reason Ahri is a character i know about is because imageboards often have some really nice concepts of her.
That said I didn't have time to read all of the first post either so maybe I'm fucking up or missing a step here.
Alichains
637
Excuse me while I try and break this down(I'm also going to make it more general):
In dumb speak, this is saying that everyone is influenced by the culture around them and that they can't escape. Since American culture has racism and sexism built into the system, everyone who grew up in it is racist or sexist to some degree; including you. Especially you. One shouldn't deny, but instead try to account for it the best they can and hope the next generation is a little better.
The Dunning-Kruger effect boils down to: "The less a person knows about a subject, the, more confident they are that they know everything about it and vice-versa"
The Internet exists for a reason. Use it. Also not everyone who enters a discussion is going to be intellectually honest and it's not a good idea to stoop to their level.
Sometimes you need to take a step back and ask why you feel the way you do about something. You might realize you're not as necessarily informed as you initially thought and that your reaction might have more to do with unconscious bigotries(that we all have) than any legitimate concern.
author=WetMattos
*sighs* there's a limit to what i can take of absolutely oblivious and reactionry thinking, and i'm reaching it fast, but before that happens, let me try to address some concerns.
@max mcgee, i'm using fcking adorno as my primary reference. like, really, please go on how you think that feminism is without merit, that's on you. but that's only on you, and that's your problem, not mine, and your entitlement, and since it's not about me, but rather, about your resistance to take every single paradigm that do not center you seriously and complain that you won't understand, i'll stop here. my first field is not feminism, my first field is race studies, particularly critical theory. i deal with, and i have suggested as readings, specifically for you, i believe, of both goffman's stigma - which is understood as a seminal work in understanding social discrimination - and said's orientalism - which is cornerstone for the entire field of post colonialist studies and media critique - and if that isn't a demonstration good enough that you've been acting on your bias only, instead of actually trying to parse the information i'm suggesting you, then, my dear, there's nothing more for me to say. mayhap, there are. the keyword here are cognitive dissonance and dunning-kruger effect.
In dumb speak, this is saying that everyone is influenced by the culture around them and that they can't escape. Since American culture has racism and sexism built into the system, everyone who grew up in it is racist or sexist to some degree; including you. Especially you. One shouldn't deny, but instead try to account for it the best they can and hope the next generation is a little better.
The Dunning-Kruger effect boils down to: "The less a person knows about a subject, the, more confident they are that they know everything about it and vice-versa"
max has been breaking down things, among others, my wish to keep engaging, because he is, in stance and content, very similar to many of the people that have been harassing people like me out of making games, and this has me very fcking frightened. so i'll be counting that.
with that said, white supremacy, dehumanization, patriarchy, ciscentrism, able discourse. you folks never attempted to undertand them, right? i mean, it's of very bad faith, to come here and complain because you do not agree with fields and knowledge you don't know about enough, so i'm both very sorry for you, and very not sorry. i have given a list of authors and books here, because i'm very much academic in this sense. want to try arguing? get at least the very basic understanding on, and then come back.
which, begs the addition here, i HATE having to just go "study more" to half the answers to my thread, but i have no reason to do the emotional labor to coddle your very reasonable and very answerable concerns when half the things i'm talking about are available for free on the internet and have been commented greatly upon for the last eighty years, at least, and the other half is just have been directly addressed by these very commenters. it fells sad to see that you truly believe that your entitlement to have information handled to you trumps my emotional and health needs, so go do your fcking job and fcking educate yourself.
The Internet exists for a reason. Use it. Also not everyone who enters a discussion is going to be intellectually honest and it's not a good idea to stoop to their level.
@tyranos, great going there. to mistake my adherence to a specific framework with a specific technical language as incompetence? good. to believe i have to explain something i have given, more than once, tools for understanding because you don't understand and as such the world has to revolve around you? very good. to actually believe that one can state reality while forgetting that all theory is but a description of reality and as such any discussion of social studies must be made with the perspective of never having an actual, absolute truth, because that's impossible and because in the end, there are many interpretations upon a given fact? really weights on your side. since you haven't come here to debate, and more to state 'reality', let me give you a suggestion: get out and do something more productive with your life. at this point, what you've been doing is derailing - explained by the very simple fact that the people who understood my question and statements are still going at it, which means it's not about not being able to be understood, but rather about you don't understanding, and that doesn't make a point unworthy of being made, nor forces us, specially not me, of having to stop everything to coddle to your needs.
also, the fact that you believe the outrage is because a 'female' was made 'ugly', a. you're part of the problem, b. you're oblivious to the problem, and c. you're not welcome here with this kind of language. put 'female' with any degree of unironic intent in any part of my thread again, and i'll be asking a mod to take action, because if you don't understand why a trans woman would object to biologically reducing language, you don't need to be here - neither i have to read your words. shoo.
before going any further, i have to remind people that a big part of the scientific method is asking oneself constantly "where am i wrong". why? because if you start any kind of attempt at understanding something being certain that you are right, you won't get it. and you'll fall in confirmation bias, in dunning-kruger effect, and other very good, very interesting cognitive bias to know about, but not to reproduce. so, intead of asking me "why don't you explain to me", try asking yourself why you don't get it, and, if it bothers you, work to get it. this is my last word on this matter.
i have an important reunion in half an hour, so i won't be adressing pentagonbuddy and liberty points entirely now - even because addressing everyone else was fucking exhausting and i just woke up, but pentagonbuddy have a great point here, go read them. see you folks later.
Sometimes you need to take a step back and ask why you feel the way you do about something. You might realize you're not as necessarily informed as you initially thought and that your reaction might have more to do with unconscious bigotries(that we all have) than any legitimate concern.
for all people that took the time to greatly reduce the number of words i've been using, thanks. i'll take that as an example for my own texts.
also, @snowowl, english isn't my first language, so the way i create sentences in my mother language bleeds over my english writing. that means, i write how i speak, and i don't speak only english.
also, for all people who are speaking of 'letting character be human', we're in a society that creates hierarchies by undermining groups' humanity. so, the solution is not make marginalized people behave as if they weren't marginalized - that is, making them human by making them act like the hegemonic groups - but rather to understand their individual narratives and create space for that. we don't need people to 'become' human, we need to raise their narratives to a place of value.
EDIT: @liberty: i'm very careful with pontuation. what i don't use is capitalization. either i got really messed up this morning while writing, or you really didn't read what i wrote.
also, @snowowl, english isn't my first language, so the way i create sentences in my mother language bleeds over my english writing. that means, i write how i speak, and i don't speak only english.
also, for all people who are speaking of 'letting character be human', we're in a society that creates hierarchies by undermining groups' humanity. so, the solution is not make marginalized people behave as if they weren't marginalized - that is, making them human by making them act like the hegemonic groups - but rather to understand their individual narratives and create space for that. we don't need people to 'become' human, we need to raise their narratives to a place of value.
EDIT: @liberty: i'm very careful with pontuation. what i don't use is capitalization. either i got really messed up this morning while writing, or you really didn't read what i wrote.
