This article and its follow-up, written on the blog Paging Dr. Nerdlove addresses the issue of sexism in video games and geek culture quite fully. Well, the first part presents the issue and the second article was written in response to the vast amount of negative responses the author received because of the first post. That is one of the key problems: gamers are extremely hostile to the idea that they are being sexist. Either they deny the issue, say no one cares, or that it's okay because it's a male-dominated culture so games would obviously pander to a male audience or that male characters are sexualized as well, so it evens out. Dr. Nerdlove goes into depth deconstructing these foolish arguments and why they're not helping.
Even though geek culture and media are generally male centric, women are making great progress in fantasy, movies and comics at an increasing rate. However, it seems that video games are lagging behind. One of the most egregious failing of the gaming industries that the author brought up and I am most annoyed by is the profound lack of good female characters that have. Female characters that actually have interesting stories and development are few and far between, while virtually every game has some swimsuit model gyrating or prancing around as a love interest. Even games that put in an effort to have female characters end up perpetuating stereotypes by treating them as objects of desire first and characters second. Let's look at the author's example from the recent Batman game Arkham City.
These are three very obviously different characters, with different motivations, stories and, most relevantly, body types. The hero is ridiculously muscular, one villain is rail-thin and the other is on the chubby side. Now, see the difference in them and the female characters:
Now which of these is the villain? The hero? They are certainly different, but from looking at them all we get is sexy. There is only one body type: skinny with big boobs, paired with tight and revealing clothing. What changes between them? Hair and skin color and makeup, mostly. They could even trade outfits without much confusion. It's as if for male characters the designers thought, "Okay, how does this character fight? How can we show that?" and for female characters, "So we start with a barbie doll...now what color spandex defines her seduction style?" This is coming from a modern, otherwise well written game, of which there are many that have the same problem. This isn't even mentioning fighting games such as Soul Caliber or Dead or Alive (which even had a beach volleyball spin-off), which introduced "jiggle physics" to the female characters' exaggerated breasts to boost sales.
Looking at recent games, it was very challenging to come up with any female characters that had interesting stories and were not overtly sexualized. The only ones from major games this decade I thought of were Elena Fisher from the Uncharted series, Alyx Vance from Half-Life 2 and FemShep from Mass Effect, who only ha an interesting story because she is the main character who you decide the personality and look of. Feel free to give me more examples.
Blog of Aestheticized Violence. Cornell University, Classes: One Girl in All the World and American Flow
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Video Game Superheroines: Appropriate role models or just “a 13 year-old boy’s fantasy”?
Many video games
I grew up playing had the main characters as male. Legend of Zelda, Mario
Bros., and Sonic are all examples of games that starred a male character. In
addition, many of these games had the main character, such as Link or Mario,
saving the helpless female, (Zelda and Princess Peach) who had been captured by
the main boss. However, as the years have passed, many more games have been
created, or at least evolved, to have female main characters. Some games have
it as choice between gender characters and some strictly have a female
protagonist. Nonetheless, these female characters seem to be modeled after a
woman that has the perfect breast to waist to hip ratio with flawless skin and
hair. Thus, has this evolvement toward a more female empowering gaming world
really contribute positively to the cause?
I have mixed feelings and so do
other critics. Peter Hartlaub, writer of the article “Top 9 greatest video game
heroines” mentions how The Chronicle’s video game critics picked “nine playable
characters…judged on toughness and coolness, with no swimsuit, or evening gown
competition” since many of these characters still have exaggerated body images.
Still, that doesn’t take from the fact that these characters still kick serious
butt and can stand on their own two feet. The fantasy world these characters
live in have their community depending on the character’s success. That is a
serious load to have to carry. So don’t these females get credit for that?
Yes, it would be nice to have a game
focused around a woman who radiates strength and independence without her
having to have the next Miss America body but would that game really sell? I feel that we are making progress toward a
more gender-equal society but the step is just really small. Nonetheless, any
step counts and we should appreciate the step for what it is worth. While some
people may initially start playing the game to admire the woman’s shape as she moves
across the screen, I feel that eventually these people will begin enjoying the
game for its storyline. This may be a very small fraction, but at least it is
something, right? A drastic leap from powerless, but beautiful women to strong,
but physically unattractive women may just be too much of a shock to society.
The cause must be eased into or all the efforts may be lost. As a final note, give
the public what they want but slowly habituate them to an idea that truly puts
women on a pedestal that is equal to a man, without the degrading body image
stereotypes. Whether this is in video games, books, movies, or government,
these small steps to the common goal will eventually reap praiseworthy
benefits.
Read more about
the “Top 9 playable characters” article at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/16/DDMA15T5M9.DTL#ixzz1qkdTHwqD
Hunger Games to Inspire More Strong Female Characters?
I came across a great article written just this morning on E! online questioning the effects the success of The Hunger Games will have in Hollywood. It seems that the huge success of the movie (grossing "$152.5 million in its opening weekend") may lead to more strong female characters in movies and more "female-centric projects". This makes complete sense, because if something makes money, everyone is naturally going to jump on it.
However, if you step back and really consider this, it's very interesting. Feminists have been trying for so many years to emphasize the potential of females and the strength of the gender, yet when does everyone start to really pay attention and support this portrayal of women? When a strong female character makes big bucks in Hollywood. In this way, our society truly revolves around the media. So was the popularity of the Hunger Games partially caused by growing support for strong females in our society? Or is the Hunger Games just a good story that happens to have a female main character?
If you believe the latter, then what better way to get public support of an idea? If we introduce these topics that we want to garner support for in new, entertaining ways, the public almost subconsciously starts to see the topic in a new light. Simply telling people that women can break stereotypical gender roles is nowhere near as effective as showing them.
According to another article on the effect the media has on gender, children learn these gender stereotypes from a young age, and mostly through TV and movies. The article contains many interesting statistics, including the frequency of female characters in the media, as well as the way in which they are portrayed, and the effect it seems to have on children growing up watching these portrayals.
In all, it seems that the best way to influence the public view on a topic is through portrayal in the media. So why isn't this used more often?? Why don't we see more of this subdued version of propaganda, used to manipulate our minds into thinking in whatever way the media intends? Or is it used so often that we don't even notice it anymore?
However, if you step back and really consider this, it's very interesting. Feminists have been trying for so many years to emphasize the potential of females and the strength of the gender, yet when does everyone start to really pay attention and support this portrayal of women? When a strong female character makes big bucks in Hollywood. In this way, our society truly revolves around the media. So was the popularity of the Hunger Games partially caused by growing support for strong females in our society? Or is the Hunger Games just a good story that happens to have a female main character?
If you believe the latter, then what better way to get public support of an idea? If we introduce these topics that we want to garner support for in new, entertaining ways, the public almost subconsciously starts to see the topic in a new light. Simply telling people that women can break stereotypical gender roles is nowhere near as effective as showing them.
According to another article on the effect the media has on gender, children learn these gender stereotypes from a young age, and mostly through TV and movies. The article contains many interesting statistics, including the frequency of female characters in the media, as well as the way in which they are portrayed, and the effect it seems to have on children growing up watching these portrayals.
In all, it seems that the best way to influence the public view on a topic is through portrayal in the media. So why isn't this used more often?? Why don't we see more of this subdued version of propaganda, used to manipulate our minds into thinking in whatever way the media intends? Or is it used so often that we don't even notice it anymore?
Turning The Hunger Games into "The Gender Games"
Anxiously awaiting when I could finally see The Hunger Games movie for myself, I came across a really interesting article
in the Wall Street Journal about how the movie was marketed. According to the
article, the movie required a different games of its own: “The Gender Games.”
The book adheres to many famous ideals, focusing on a female
heroine, Katniss, in a fight to the death among 23 other contestants of both
genders. The fight encompasses both genders, showing that female kids have the
ability to fight equally against kids of male gender. Additionally, by making
the main character a female in the fight, this book takes an even bigger stride
for feminists. Not only is there a female protagonist, but she also does not
show any weakness where bravery is needed most and comes out victorious in the end.
Although there is a love story integrated into the plot, this
love triangle is merely for entertainment in the novel and does not play a huge
part in the story. Most importantly, the love story does not conflict with
Katniss’s character. She remains a strong female heroine, not being swayed or
forced into a stereotypical gender role at the end of the story by falling in
love.
However, although the love story should not be the main
focus of the novel, this very component of the book caused a “Gender Games”
when trying to publicize the movie. It’s presence in the book and the
characters cast for Gale and Peeta left many young girls across the country
swooning. This “female cult fandom” may have deterred males from seeing the
movie, as they become annoyed by the fanatic focus on the love story instead of
on Katniss’s strong character in the brutal situation that she fights to get
out of. In fact, the article states that 73% of young women had definite
interest in seeing the movie, while only 48% of young men said they were
definitely interested.
In order to reverse this thinking, marketing this movie
required some playing of “The Gender Games” in attempts to bring male interest
back up to the substantial male interest the books themselves had without
losing the huge female following the movie already gained. An online videogame
was made and the movie was screened in IMAX, both of which target male
audiences.
However, in order to bring the movie back to what males
found intriguing in the book in the first place (it’s fast pace, strong
characters and violent sport), these specific traits were highlighted in the
trailers. Bruzzese, president of Ipsos MediaCT's Motion
Picture Group, mentions, “They've taken away the love story and
focused on the hero, who, by virtue of her altruism and fire, is going to stand
up against this situation.”
Watching the trailer for myself, I
found this to definitely be true. Her bravery and determination are
unquestionable, and the focus on the action of the movie could leave anyone,
whether male or female, yearning to see more. With these trailers and overall
product of the movie, The Hunger Games
was definitely triumphant in “The Gender Games”.
Where Have All The Strong Women Gone?
Searching the
web the other day, I came across this interesting article about the lack of
strong female leads in popular TV series of today. In the article the author,
Daniel Bettridge, makes an argument that shows such as Gossip Girl and 90210 feature
female leads that are “little more than expensive clothes horses.” He claims
that their male counterparts define these female characters. The shows center
around who’s doing what and who’s seeing who rather than an interesting, female
empowering storyline. Bettridge questions where shows like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Veronica
Mars have gone. Shows that instead feature, according to him, petty, vein,
and overall pathetic women have replaced shows that included leading female
superheroines.
I agree with Bettridge’s argument,
but I think that he is too fast to dismiss the female characters of such shows
as weak. Sure, Gossip Girl centers
around Blair Waldorf, a spoiled Upper East Side princess, and her numerous love
interests, but it also shows Blair as an independent, powerful (in that she can
manipulate anyone and basically always gets her way), and intelligent woman.
She goes to Columbia with her best friend, Serena, and gets a competitive
internship. Her mother owns her own fashion company. Another character in the
show, Jenny Humphrey, proves her talent as a designer before she even graduates
high school. Although the females in this show are born with countless
privileges, they also work hard to succeed and be independent, proving that
they, too, are strong female characters. They may not have Wonder Woman’s
superpowers or Buffy’s ass-kicking mentality, but they are certainly viable
representations of a strong, modern-day woman trying to succeed in the real
world.
Here is a link to the article: http://tv.uk.msn.com/features/articles.aspx?cp-documentid=149727902
It was written in 2009, so it is a
little outdated, but I still think that Bettridge overlooked some of the
strength that can be seen in leading female characters today. Also, many new
shows, such as The Vampire Diaries,
center on strong female characters that are honorable, independent, and fierce.
It is unquestionable that there has yet to be a show that features a character
as powerful as Buffy, but I think that Bettridge didn’t give enough credit to the
leading ladies of today’s shows.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Women Victimized in the News
While home on spring break, I saw a
local news story that caught my attention.
It was about a fight that broke out in a McDonald’s in New York
City. In this story, the reporter
emphasized the fact that this was not the first act of violence to occur at
that specific McDonald’s. Both this
and the first violent act went viral when caught on tape, but the first was
different in that it involved women.
The
first fight, which occurred in October of 2011, took place when two women
jumped over the counter and were subsequently beaten with a metal rod by the
cashier. The women were hospitalized and
the cashier was fired and arrested, but charges against him were
dismissed.
This is
a clear act of brutal violence that led to these women being seen as
victims. However, when reading comments
on the article on the NBC website, I found it interesting that many people
believed the reporting to be heavily biased.
Those who commented claimed that the women got “what they had coming” or
“were looking for trouble”. These viewpoints
seem to contradict that of the reporter and bring up the question of how
violence against women is portrayed in the news.
This
report suggests that whenever women are injured in a violent incident, they are
automatically victimized, and the men are the offenders. The reporter did not spend much time
discussing the women’s part in jumping over the counter or starting the dispute
with the cashier that led to the entire incident. Instead, the report focused greatly on the
violence on the part of the male cashier.
Some of
the comments on the article encouraged readers to view the full, unedited video
of the incident (below), to understand the role the women played in instigating
the actions of the worker. The edited
version does not include the women yelling and creating a scene prior to the
violence on the part of the worker. Of
course, it cannot be overlooked that the women were injured enough that they
were hospitalized, but edits such as these seem to help create a bias in the
story. This then begs the question of
whether the women were victimized in the media because of their gender or
because they really were the victims in this story.
After
watching these videos (both here and from the NBC article) or reading the brief summary of the incident, do you
think this story was really “slanted” or was the reporter right in presenting
the women as the true victims of the incident?
There may not be a clear answer, but it does seem that the story had a
bias towards the women.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
The Hunger Games Movie: Hit or Miss?
After watching The Hunger Games movie, I think it is safe to
say that the movie has lived up to all the hype. Overall, the movie was backed
by strong performances of Katniss and Peeta. Although there were some
discrepancies in the movie, I think that the movie was definitely well worth
the watch.
For the most part, the movie remained faithful to the book.
It included key scenes including the Reaping, training with other tributes, and
in the Games, the Cornucopia scenes, the tracker-jacker encounter, Rue’s death,
the cave scene with Peeta, and the finale of the Games with the mutations.
Although I felt that the movie was fast paced, it did successfully covered
these important scenes in brevity.
I also thought that the choice for the cast of the movie was
well picked. Jennifer Lawrence played a strong, steadfast, and reliable
Katniss. The movie portrayed her to be very protective over her younger sister,
Prim and along with helping Peeta when he was injured. Likewise, I thought that
Peeta was very likeable and convincing of his love for Katniss. His portrayal
in the movie was very representative of the book, particularly his monologue on
the roof with Katniss the night before the Games began. Also, I thought
Elizabeth Banks made a great choice for Effie. Her costume and demeanor were
exemplary of the Capitol.
However, one discrepancy that I found strange was that
during the end of the movie, Peeta was left almost unharmed. In the book,
although Peeta’s leg was much better after applying the magic cream sent from
the sponsors in the Capitol, his leg did not fully recover. In fact, he needed
a prosthetic in the end. Likewise, during the final scene in the Games, Katniss
is still bleeding from her ear. However, in the movie, both Peeta and Katniss
appear only to be a little disheveled. It seems that they are just wondering
around the woods. As a result, the movie lacks the sense of desperation for
survival and tension.
I also noticed that the movie added a scene that was not in
the book. In final scene of the Games, in the Cornucopia, Cato was wrestling
with Katniss and almost has her head dangling off the Cornucopia. Fortunately,
Peeta comes to her rescue. I found it particularly strange why this scene was added.
Rather, in the book, the muttations attacked Peeta’s leg and made him more
vulnerable than Katniss.
Since the movie is an adaptation of the book, the moviegoers
will instinctively compare the movie to the book, making it harder for Hunger
Games fans to be satisfied. However, overall with excellent casting choices and
its faithfulness to the book, though despite some discrepancies, I thought that
the movie is definitely worth watching .
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
The Hunger Games: Reasoning behind the changes made from the text to the film
I found this
great article on E News website that discusses the specific differences between
the Hunger Games movie and the book and tries to help us understand the
reasoning behind those changes. The author of the article, Leslie Gornstein,
points out five apparent changes. First being that the story about the Avox
girl that waits on Katniss while in training for the games is completely left
out. Katniss is cast as Jenifer Lawrence who has fair skin and light hair when
in the book she is characterized as having olive skin and dark hair. In the
film, there are scenes added about the dictator of the capital and the creator
of the games. There is a lack of violence in the film compared to the fighting
described in the novel. The fifth change that Gornstein points out is that a
riot scene in District Eleven that was not in the book was added to the plot in
the film. In my opinion, the book was a great read so I was very curious to
learn why these changes were made in creating the movie and I bet you are curious
as well.
Gornstein
discovered the answers to our questions regarding these differences from the
Hunger Games team that consists of director Gary Ross, scriptwriter Billy Ray
and the novel’s author Susanne Collins. In regards to deleting the Avox
subplot, the team felt that there just was not enough time allotted to the film
in order to fit in the story about the Avox girl. It would have taken too much
time to stray from Katniss’s narrative to portray what happened in the woods
that day. Do you think that the film should have been extended far longer to
include the interaction between Avox girl and Katniss?
As we discussed
in class, there has been much controversy about the casting of Katniss as a
fair skinned blonde. The team says the answer is simple really, they just could
not imagine a better fit for the character than Jenifer Lawrence. Is there
another Hollywood star that you believe would have made an amazing Katniss?
In the film, the
team created scenes with the dictator and game-maker in order to provide more
clarification about the thinking behind creation of the games and the hierarchy
of their society. Do you think that this is a necessary add in?
The lack of
blood and guts in the film is due to the fact that the makers of the movie
wanted it to be PG-13. They wanted to target a similar audience as the novel
that being young viewers.
In the film,
they added a riot scene that takes place in District Eleven. The team created
this addition as a precursor to the second novel Catching Fire and to
demonstrate the effect that Katniss and Peeta’s victory has had on the
districts. I agree that this change was necessary because I felt that the
ending of the novel wasn’t completely satisfying in that it didn’t insinuate what
could be coming up in the next novel.
Check out the article at:
http://www.eonline.com/news/ask_the_answer_bitch/why_did_hunger_games_movie_change_much/304358?cmpid=sn-000000-twitterfeed-365-topstories&utm_source=eonline&utm_medium=twitterfeed&utm_campaign=twitterfeed_topstories&%3Fcmpid=eonline-twitter&dlvrit=48939
Self-Esteem in Hayes' "Shafro"
In Terrance Hayes' poem "Shafro", the theme of celebrities inevitably holding the burden of being a role model for their fans is explicated. An ordinary black male (deduced from Hayes' word choice "black halo") aspires to have the confidence that the media portrays Shaft to have ("three movies & a brief TV series"). Shaft is not only described to be this action-packed individual, but one also of sexual appeal, "always a woman sleeping next to him."
Despite an ordinary black male such as the narrator obtaining the physical characteristics similar to Shaft, there are some situations where the possession of these characteristics does not change who he is. The narrator says, "I keep the real me tucked beneath a wig" and states later on that "I grow beautiful as the theatre dims." It seems by these two statements that he cannot truly express himself when in the "spotlight" of the public, only being able to portray what he desires to be from other individuals. However, when the attention is directed elsewhere, the true being of the narrator can come to shine. It is ironic (a sort of play on words) how when the spotlight that the public places on individuals disappears, that time is when the individual really shows their true being. The irony, more explicitly, is the drastic effect that this public spotlight has on the way an individual portrays himself/herself to the public.
To bring this discussion back to the context of the poem, Shaft may very well be a completely different individual than the media portrays him to be. Thus, the failure of true confidence comes about in the narrator's thoughts, shown in the following excerpt: "Bits of my courage flake off like dandruff."
In summary, though a black individual is shown to be heroic and successful, the young black public gets the wrong idea of how to go about achieving these qualities. I say young black public, because I feel adults would know that such meager actions as growing one's hair out will not lead to the obtainment of these qualities. However, the adults may still be swayed to believe other "false" actions will lead to these qualities.What are your thoughts on the subject?
Terrance Hayes' poem can be accessed here: http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/shafro/
Despite an ordinary black male such as the narrator obtaining the physical characteristics similar to Shaft, there are some situations where the possession of these characteristics does not change who he is. The narrator says, "I keep the real me tucked beneath a wig" and states later on that "I grow beautiful as the theatre dims." It seems by these two statements that he cannot truly express himself when in the "spotlight" of the public, only being able to portray what he desires to be from other individuals. However, when the attention is directed elsewhere, the true being of the narrator can come to shine. It is ironic (a sort of play on words) how when the spotlight that the public places on individuals disappears, that time is when the individual really shows their true being. The irony, more explicitly, is the drastic effect that this public spotlight has on the way an individual portrays himself/herself to the public.
To bring this discussion back to the context of the poem, Shaft may very well be a completely different individual than the media portrays him to be. Thus, the failure of true confidence comes about in the narrator's thoughts, shown in the following excerpt: "Bits of my courage flake off like dandruff."
In summary, though a black individual is shown to be heroic and successful, the young black public gets the wrong idea of how to go about achieving these qualities. I say young black public, because I feel adults would know that such meager actions as growing one's hair out will not lead to the obtainment of these qualities. However, the adults may still be swayed to believe other "false" actions will lead to these qualities.What are your thoughts on the subject?
Terrance Hayes' poem can be accessed here: http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/shafro/
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Why Don't We Care About Women's Sports?
During this time of March Madness and the NCAA Hockey tournament (let's go Red!), I found myself wondering why most Americans put so much energy into following men's sports, but couldn't care less about women's basketball or hockey. While it can be said that this is because men are naturally more athletic, so in any sport that both genders compete in, the male games will be more exciting, I feel that this doesn't fully explain the issue. Why aren't there any sports that would be more exciting to watch women compete in, such as ones that favor smaller, more graceful people rather than the stronger and faster? Or do these sports exist and I just am not aware of them?
The only women's sporting events that I can recall watching are gymnastics, swimming and beach volleyball, all of which have been every 4 years at the Olympics and also feature fairly revealing outfits. I think that there could easily be a team sport that it would be more exciting to watch women play than men due to the nature of the sport, or variations on currently popular sports with rule changes that favor women, without incorporating sex appeal, such as the Lingerie Football League (that's a thing, I promise).
On the other hand, am I imaging this lack of exciting women's sports simply because I don't enjoy watching them as much as their male counterparts? It could be true that many people prefer watching women's soccer and I just don't know it. Please enlighten me with your opinions on this matter.
Edit: just realized I forgot that women's tennis is extremely popular. That is because I dislike tennis, not women.
The only women's sporting events that I can recall watching are gymnastics, swimming and beach volleyball, all of which have been every 4 years at the Olympics and also feature fairly revealing outfits. I think that there could easily be a team sport that it would be more exciting to watch women play than men due to the nature of the sport, or variations on currently popular sports with rule changes that favor women, without incorporating sex appeal, such as the Lingerie Football League (that's a thing, I promise).
On the other hand, am I imaging this lack of exciting women's sports simply because I don't enjoy watching them as much as their male counterparts? It could be true that many people prefer watching women's soccer and I just don't know it. Please enlighten me with your opinions on this matter.
Edit: just realized I forgot that women's tennis is extremely popular. That is because I dislike tennis, not women.
The Walking Dead- How Come Men Get to Kill All the Zombies?
After watching AMC's new hit show "The Walking Dead", it was hard to look past the clear and uncomfortable gender roles that the show displays on a regular basis. For those who do not know the show, "The Walking Dead" is set in post-apocalyptic America, overrun by zombies, or walkers, that terrorize the few left living on Earth. Filled with violence, gore, drama, and Southern accents (the show takes place in Atlanta, Georgia), "The Walking Dead" explores life without boundaries, and the fight for survival that more often than not seems hopeless.
Unfortunately, even amidst a zombie invasion, gender boundaries still remain strong and unforgiving. Throughout the show, men protect the lives of women and children; guns and decision making are controlled by men while women hopelessly follow the guidance of those who are just as clueless as how to survive a zombie apocalypse. Sure, there is a point where the men realize women need to be able to protect themselves against zombies, but it is only once the men decide the women are ready do they get the luxury of carrying weapons. Even then it is clear that the women do not deserve that responsibility. In the episode that women are granted the right to bear arms, one women accidentally shoots one of her companions in the head, persuading the audience that she and the other women should not be allowed to protect themselves in fear of harming others. It is more often then not that women are cowardly screaming and running at the sight of the all too familiar zombies, and rely on a strong male counterpart to skewer the awful creature for her. There is no hiding the issue of gendered violence in "The Walking Dead", and men and women almost always fit stereotypical gender personalities- men are capricious and aggressive while women are passive and overly emotional. Although the show takes place in the South, it seems as though the gender roles are overly exaggerated, and modernity has yet to shed light on the advancement of women rights in the past few decades.
While the examples provided so far revolve around my own personal understanding of gender dynamics, the dialogue within the show proves the gendered nature of violence in the show. When one female character expresses her interest in protecting the group by surveilling the surrounding area for zombies, a female counterpart exclaims, "The men can handle that on their own, they don't need your help. There are plenty of other things to do around here, cooking, cleaning". Regardless of my interpretation of the show, this is a clear indication that women are being socialized to view their duties as cooking and cleaning as opposed to taking a position of leadership. "The Walking Dead" supports the notion that women should be seen and not heard, and that their duties should not extend beyond the shelter of their home.
This explicit and implicit display of gender roles and violence affects the way that women and men perceive gender in today's world. Regardless of context, "The Walking Dead" provides a lens for which people around the world are socialized to believe that women and men should occupy the roles of leadership (or lack thereof) that are displayed on television. We as a people use mass media as a reference point to understand what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and "The Walking Dead" only helps to perpetuate a negative understanding of the role that women can have in a modern context.
Unfortunately, even amidst a zombie invasion, gender boundaries still remain strong and unforgiving. Throughout the show, men protect the lives of women and children; guns and decision making are controlled by men while women hopelessly follow the guidance of those who are just as clueless as how to survive a zombie apocalypse. Sure, there is a point where the men realize women need to be able to protect themselves against zombies, but it is only once the men decide the women are ready do they get the luxury of carrying weapons. Even then it is clear that the women do not deserve that responsibility. In the episode that women are granted the right to bear arms, one women accidentally shoots one of her companions in the head, persuading the audience that she and the other women should not be allowed to protect themselves in fear of harming others. It is more often then not that women are cowardly screaming and running at the sight of the all too familiar zombies, and rely on a strong male counterpart to skewer the awful creature for her. There is no hiding the issue of gendered violence in "The Walking Dead", and men and women almost always fit stereotypical gender personalities- men are capricious and aggressive while women are passive and overly emotional. Although the show takes place in the South, it seems as though the gender roles are overly exaggerated, and modernity has yet to shed light on the advancement of women rights in the past few decades.
While the examples provided so far revolve around my own personal understanding of gender dynamics, the dialogue within the show proves the gendered nature of violence in the show. When one female character expresses her interest in protecting the group by surveilling the surrounding area for zombies, a female counterpart exclaims, "The men can handle that on their own, they don't need your help. There are plenty of other things to do around here, cooking, cleaning". Regardless of my interpretation of the show, this is a clear indication that women are being socialized to view their duties as cooking and cleaning as opposed to taking a position of leadership. "The Walking Dead" supports the notion that women should be seen and not heard, and that their duties should not extend beyond the shelter of their home.
This explicit and implicit display of gender roles and violence affects the way that women and men perceive gender in today's world. Regardless of context, "The Walking Dead" provides a lens for which people around the world are socialized to believe that women and men should occupy the roles of leadership (or lack thereof) that are displayed on television. We as a people use mass media as a reference point to understand what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior, and "The Walking Dead" only helps to perpetuate a negative understanding of the role that women can have in a modern context.
Katniss and Bella: How the Two Queens of Today’s Fiction Industry Relate
Katniss is
certainly a strong female character. Her courage, power, and survivor-mentality
cannot be disputed. She provided for her family, took her sister’s place in the
Hunger Games, and fought against the other twenty-two (not counting Peeta)
tributes to win the Games. However, as the fictional series became more and
more popular and the movie was finally released in theaters, people seemed to
have forgotten her inherent strength as a female individual and have instead
become fixated on a less important, more superficial aspect of Katniss’s story:
her love interests.
Sure, Peeta and Gale embody a large
part of the story line, but I believe that Katniss’s story has more depth than a
mere love story. I admit that I was rooting for Peeta while reading the series
(yes, I couldn’t just stop at the first novel…), and I’m sure I’ll swoon over
the actors once I get around to seeing the movie, but I can’t help but thinking
that the newfound obsession with this Hunger Game love triangle parallels
directly with that of another major player in the industry of fictional series:
the Twilight Saga.
In my opinion, Katniss is an
obviously stronger, more powerful female character than Bella, but while
reading the Hunger Games series, I kept relating her predicament with that of
Bella. Just as Bella was torn between Edward and Jacob and couldn’t seem to
make up her mind, Katniss was torn between Peeta and Gale and remained
undecided until the very end of the series. The love triangle surely brought
more conflict to Katniss’s story, but it also weakened her image as a powerful
female character in a way. I found it hard to believe that as her life was on
the line (as it was countless times throughout the series), she couldn’t make
up her mind and realize who she truly loved as more than a friend.
I
know that it was a difficult decision, but such uncertainty certainly caused Katniss to
seem less powerful, especially since it was centered around her own emotions.
Just as Bella did in the Twilight Saga, Katniss wavered back and forth between
the two men in her life. Rather than taking a stand and realizing her true
desires, she remained undecided and tiptoed around her actual feelings. I still think that Katniss’s strength is
undeniable, but I just wish she made up her mind earlier in the series and did
not show much of the typical “girly” problem of not knowing what she wanted when it came to love. I
guess it made for good drama, but I couldn’t keep myself from relating her
commonplace dilemma to Bella’s, and this definitely caused me to view her as a
weaker character overall.
Female Protagonists in Twilight & The Hunger Games
Even before “The Hunger Games” movie was even released,
there has been a lot of comparison of the two. Likewise, there have been 13
year olds infatuated with Team Peeta and Team Gale, as they were with Team
Edward and Team Jacob with Twilight. In fact, something I found funny watching
The Hunger Games movie was that the last preview trailer was Twilight’s
Breaking Dawn Part II. After having read the Twilight books and reading and
watching the Hunger Games, I can seriously say that Twilight and the Hunger
Games are two different stories and should not be compared. Although both focus
on female protagonists, Bella Swan is portrayed to be a damsel in distress, while Katniss Everdeen is portrayed to be self sufficient and protective of her family.
Although Bella and Katniss are presented in a love triangle,
Bella and Katniss differ in their reliance on males. Edward seems to be the one
true love for Bella. In fact, in the second installment in the Twilight Saga,
“New Moon”, Bella almost died from cliff diving, hoping that Edward would come
back to her. She is almost obsessed with Edward, refusing to live without him. However,
in The Hunger Games, Katniss is more independent. For instance, in The Hunger
Games, Katniss is reluctant to be part of the “star-crossed lovers” narrative
with Peeta. She also has doubts of what her relationship with is Gale, if they
just very good friends or something more. In the Twilight Saga, the main story
arc is the love story of how Bella is in love with Edward rather than Jacob,
whereas The Hunger Games, the love story is only peripheral to the main story
arc of how omnipotent the Capitol is over the twelve districts.
Another way that Bella and Katniss are different is their
role in the family. Katniss is the breadwinner, hunting beyond the fences of
District 12 and gathering with Gale, her confidant, and trading for various
items in the Hob. She also tries hard to protect her sister, Prim. For
instance, she volunteers to take Prim’s place during the Reaping and insists
that she does not take any tessaraes. On the other hand, Bella is always running
into trouble and requires the protection from other vampires. In Twilight, two
bloodthirsty vampires, James and Victoria, chase after Bella, just because her
blood smells sweet and she presents to be a challenge. Edward is able to kill
James. In Eclipse, Victoria comes back for Bella for vengeance. Thus, Edward
and his family devise a plan to save Bella. In all the books in the Twilight
Saga, Bella is presented to be vulnerable, always requiring the protection of
others, whereas, Katniss is a much stronger female protagonist, both physically
and emotionally.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)