Women gamers

[stofsk]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
From my experience, women tend more to the direction of rule-light storytelling than towards wargaming.

You're not alone there. I have a female player in my game at the moment, who has trouble with detailed and complicated character generation - such as you would find in Traveller T20 (or perhaps any other version of Traveller, I am led to believe).

Hell, even I like it when the rules are light; less work for me as the referee.

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
Certainly numerically dominated. Some genre's are almost all men (Military Sci Fi). I am personally more concerned with it being dominated by hacks/formula writers than by male or females. Sci Fi labors under demographics for many things. I believe the target audience is predominately male, but those numbers are changing.

As to tonal differences, I don't know. There is a severe tonal difference between "Lathe of Heaven" and "Starship Troopers" but how much of that is due to gender, ?

I'm not sure. I find typical military sci-fi somewhat boring to read. Starship Troopers is pretty sparse on the whole war thing, much of the novel is about Heinlein describing to us through his viewpoint character the world of the Terran Federation, with its fascist undertones, as well as the military life. Neither particularly appeals to me.

On the other hand if you put Battlestar Galactica up on screen I'll eat it up. There is perhaps a difference in reading about the fancy military toys (Heinlein's power armour) and seeing those toys in action (BSG's Vipers, Galactica's flak screen).

It could also have something to do with the quality of the characters. For example, Juan Rico is really just your typical Heinlein protagonist - smart, brave, down to earth (supposedly). That's it. I can't really think of any other character that is in that book; they're all supporting roles that serve to give us a look into Juan's psyche, when he's not really that interesting to begin with. Again to use BSG as a couterpoint, there are a multitude of different characters who each seem to have their flaws and foibles... as well as fortes.

Perhaps this is why females tend to steer away from sci-fi, because of the lack of proper characterisation. Your average audience will accept whacky sci-fi devices (fighters in space, Star Wars style walkers, psionic samurai warriors with laser swords) because they have a style to them which is cool, but for substance they look towards characters - and if they don't have it, the audience won't give a shit.

This is why Star Trek has been going down the drain in the last decade and a half, because nobody really cares for the characters. Put Kirk and Spock on screen and people will come in DROVES to watch it; Picard and Data? If the TNG movies are anything to go by, nobody gives a damn about them. Rick Berman told the actors of his shows to 'tone it down' so as to make the alien guest stars seem outrageous and over the top. The problem with this is your PRINCIPAL cast appears to be subdued and disinterested in what they're doing, and it comes across to the audience that the CHARACTERS aren't particularly exciting or worthy of being watched.

Compare latter-day Trek to classic Trek, yes Shatner's acting was over the top at times, but that was part of the charm. At least he gave Kirk soul, he gave him life. He was a character in a way that latter-day Trek neglected.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Many factors contribute to the decline of Star Trek, and they could go on endlessly. My money is on the loss of fans because they went back on the "mankind having a positive future" angle. That, and some of the most god awful scripts I have ever seen. But I digress...

Perhaps it is the rise of the "Shero". It is how Ripley in Alien went from being a normal person in the first movie, to asskicking Rambolina by "aliens". To many, this seems like "empowerment", but to me it seems like women being written for by guys that normally aren't able to get near a woman without a restraining order. There is a tendency to masculate (if that is the word) roles.

"The Sexless Female Enforcer" model (which includes Buffy, Lara Croft, and Honor Harrington) has somehow become a staple. A 180 from the "I twisted my ankle!" model of the 50s. Yes, the girls can "kick ass", but they are basically guys that are in female form. The only model I know of where it worked (in reverse) was Erin on Farscape. She was an unemotional soldier robot that grew as a character into a person.

Before "But Buffy had a Boyfriend!" I need remind you also that "It could never work out" is the rule for that. No matter how the story goes, it seems the Shero checks normal human bearing at the door in order to "kick ass". There is always something that makes it not work out.

I am not saying sci fi needs to be more harlequin romance novel, but it should endeavor to get away from 2d characterization and make some memorable stuff.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
Perhaps it is the rise of the "Shero". It is how Ripley in Alien went from being a normal person in the first movie, to asskicking Rambolina by "aliens". To many, this seems like "empowerment", but to me it seems like women being written for by guys that normally aren't able to get near a woman without a restraining order. There is a tendency to masculate (if that is the word) roles.

I'd say the Aliens is not a typical example of this - most of this film she's quite in a similar role to that she had in the first one (i.e. being the only person with a common sense around and the only one having any kind of empathy); her "Rambolina" act was in ONE scene, and even then it was Maternal Instinct - that is, a woman going on a rampage because someone threatens her (adopted) child - most female mammals do so (I don't recommend you to try to steal a mother bear's cubs under her nose, to say the least...). Sure, it was overdone, it was a bit out of character, but it wasn't THAT bad from a gender POV. The real "male in female's body" in Aliens was Vasquese (?), masculine as hell all over even though she was a "female". Ripley could not be easily replaced by a male, Vasquese could.

 

[rancke]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
Perhaps it is the rise of the "Shero". It is how Ripley in Alien went from being a normal person in the first movie, to asskicking Rambolina by "aliens". To many, this seems like "empowerment", but to me it seems like women being written for by guys that normally aren't able to get near a woman without a restraining order. There is a tendency to masculate (if that is the word) roles.

"The Sexless Female Enforcer" model (which includes Buffy, Lara Croft, and Honor Harrington) has somehow become a staple. A 180 from the "I twisted my ankle!" model of the 50s. Yes, the girls can "kick ass", but they are basically guys that are in female form. The only model I know of where it worked (in reverse) was Erin on Farscape. She was an unemotional soldier robot that grew as a character into a person.

I can't talk about Lara Croft or Erin of Farscape, but neither Ripley, Buffy, or Honor Harrington comes across as sexless to me. Nor does the epitome of the female action hero, Modesty Blaise (The book version -- I can't speak about the movie version). Just what is so unfeminine about any of them? I assume that you don't mean that their very ability to take action on their own is unfeminine, right? So what is it?


Hans

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

Not what I meant at all. I mean the overall tone of the character being a male with boobs. Vasquez is a good example. Ripley goes from normal to ass kicking robot warrior, and then in later Alien films (I cant remember the third one, but I do remember the one with Winona, and there Ripley's clone is a half alien ass kicker. It seems a little too contrived, like I am supposed to be attracted to girls with machine guns because they have a machine guns.

It is not the ass kicking that is unfeminine, it is the overall characterization. And by sexless, I do not mean just the character does not have sex, but that the role is so blurred that it could easily be a guy. It is a formula and I am always curious as to the genesis of formulas.

The not having sex thing is another thing entirely, and is normally a contrivance to add depth and keep people watching like they did on "moonlighting" but this works for guys , too.

 

[Klaus]

Actually, the role of Ripley in Alien was written for a guy. Sigourney Weaver came in later and the role wasn't rewritten to make it feminised. This is why Ripley rocks. There were no gender based assumptions made about her, she was just a pro, like the rest of the crew. Compare and contrast with Veronica Cartwright's Lambert, who was the typical 'hysterical woman' all the way through, only to be finally sexually molested (at least that's whats implied) before being killed.

Aeryn Sun is a great example of a quality female character, that's unpatronising and can kick-ass, and able to make a baby not unplatatably icky.

If you notice, there's hardly any decent roles written for women still, no matter what genre.

Check out John Cassavetes "Gloria" for a proper female hero!

"Sympathy for Lady Vengenace" also stands out, and the old classic "Lady Snowblood", though properly that is an exploitation flick with all that entails.

 

[kafka47]

However, Ripley then set in a trend which has numerous reversals but the steady acretion of women with attitude rather there as wallpaper. Something that one can be proud of Traveller which early on in a memo in GDW dictated that 50% of all pregens must be female. Now, we don't need female rambos filling the pages nor do we need the fairy tale princess awaiting to be saved but sleek and smart hence sexy art that does not hide either wish forfillment of either gender - the requirement for fantasy that is a key compoinent in RPGs.

One film (although the plot sucked) that did this quite well was the remake with Jolie & Pitt of Mr & Mrs. Smith.

 

[Chuck Anumia]

I liked the females role in terminator 2 better than in 1.

 

[stofsk]

Vasquez had to be female, because only as a female could she joke about Hudson's masculinity by using herself as a contrast.

Which incidentally is the funniest joke in that movie.

This whole notion of a 'Shero' being somehow bad is irksome. They've had heroines for millenia - legends of the Amazon warrior women like Hippolyta, Athena, fast forward to Jean D'Arc - and all of those could have just as well have been males in armour. But that is missing the point.

Because typically men are the ones who go and fight and defend the household. Look at Jean D'Arc for a second: she's a girl who hears voices in her head, worse she's a peasant, she has everything going against her but she still manages to inspire the French to fight the British (hehehe, it takes a little girl to inspire French to fight

). That's a hell of an accomplishment.

Star Wars: Princess Leia isn't the stereotypical damsal in distress. Lucas was clear on that. He wanted her to give as good as she got.

Alien/Aliens: Ripley was a professional. As already said, Lambert was the 'hysterical woman', Ripley in contrast was cool under pressure. But even then, she was still scared out of her mind. She's not some fearless 'rambolina' and to characterise her as such ignores the text of the film. Her 'rampage' at the end WASN'T out of character; instead of being scared she turned angry, which is a natural reaction.

Buffy: Not Buffy's biggest fan, but trust me, she was girly.

Firefly: Look at Zoe.

Battlestar Galactica: Starbuck is often derided as being too 'male-like' because she's uncouth, drinks alcohol, and smokes cigars - as though these are solely male only past times. Which is complete rubbish, and I think Moore likes to go against the grain and show that its rubbish. When a guy does it, it's OK, but when a woman does it, suddenly she's not a woman, or she's a man with boobs, or rather she's not a 'lady'. It's an unfair double standard and sci-fi should be better than that.

Frankly I don't understand why there is a reaction against strong female characters by fans who also deride them by calling them 'Sheros', a coarse term that completely undermines the whole concept of gender equality in sci-fi. They're heroines.

 

[stofsk]

Originally posted by Baron Saarthuran von Gushiddan:
Many factors contribute to the decline of Star Trek, and they could go on endlessly. My money is on the loss of fans because they went back on the "mankind having a positive future" angle.

Star Trek never had a particularly positive future. TOS never visited earth, all we heard was stories without the ability to confirm the veracity of said stories; when we visited Vulcan, we found they still practice duels to the death.

The world in TNG was not a pleasant one. If anything TNG showed a cleverly subversive dystopia but to assume that gives the writers too much credit. Rather they tried to write a utopia so badly that they ended up depicting the reverse. TNG Federation's only saving grace is that there are frankly worse places to be (who would want to live with the Klingons?).

I ignored the TV specials that claimed ST was a positive future, in addition to inventing the cell phone and civil rights movements. Frankly that kind of self-absorbed wankery is the reason why Star Trek has declined considerably. Instead of telling a story Trek is obsessed with taking the credit for other people's achievements. I'm sad to say it started in TOS with Harlan Ellison's award-winning script being hijacked by Gene Rottenberry, and it's never ended.

Perhaps it is the rise of the "Shero". It is how Ripley in Alien went from being a normal person in the first movie, to asskicking Rambolina by "aliens". To many, this seems like "empowerment",

Actually it is empowerment, because women back in those days weren't depicted as capable of fighting back. They were either sex objects, or villainesses who will stab you in the back.

but to me it seems like women being written for by guys that normally aren't able to get near a woman without a restraining order. There is a tendency to masculate (if that is the word) roles.

It's interesting you suggest that the character of Ripley was written by 'guys who normally wouldn't be able to go near a woman without a restraining order'. Particularly since James Cameron worked with Gale Anne Hurd on Aliens and Terminator and I believe on other films.

"The Sexless Female Enforcer" model (which includes Buffy, Lara Croft, and Honor Harrington) has somehow become a staple.

Yes - and have a strong female fan base. There's you 'sexless female enforcer' for you, Buffy is enormously popular with some women, and having a female character to play on a computer game is usually a GOOD THING since it allows female gamers someone else to play beyond the ridiculous male stereotype of 'kickass warrior'.

A 180 from the "I twisted my ankle!" model of the 50s. Yes, the girls can "kick ass", but they are basically guys that are in female form.

This is sexist disingenuous rubbish. The 'twisted ankle' of the 50s was a disgrace, so we replaced it with a complete 180 - good! Because that's the direction it has to go! The depiction of women who can contribute is a bad thing?

That is precisely why women are turned off of sci-fi.

Before "But Buffy had a Boyfriend!" I need remind you also that "It could never work out" is the rule for that. No matter how the story goes, it seems the Shero checks normal human bearing at the door in order to "kick ass". There is always something that makes it not work out.

You think that has to do with 'Sheros' and not with the insane danger warrior characters routinely put themselves into? Last I checked Captain Kirk's lovers either A) die, or B) leave him.

On the other hand you have Zoe and Wash from Firefly. It didn't 'work out' between them because Wash was killed by the Reavers. THAT is the fear that drives any relationship when your primary career involves risking your life on a daily basis. Buffy's relationships never really succeeded because she had A) a secret identity to preserve, which meant she had to be careful who she let into her life, B) also in constant danger of being killed by vampires, who also threatened her loved ones and C) she already had poor taste in men (Angel, Riley).

Erin - who a moment ago you were praising as a 'Shero that makes sense' - was resistant to John's overtures because unlike John she understood a warrior's life could end today, tommorow, next week, next year, etc. However it is a basic human need to desire companionship and love.

If you were to depict warrior characters (male or female) having NO trouble keeping a meaningful relationship (note: ⌧ buddies don't count) then I would scream 'unrealistic'. Because it is.

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

James Cameron has been married 6 or 7 times... having him write for a woman would probably have the same value as marriage advice from him...

 

[parmasson]

I think that it is widely accepted that many gender roles are programmed into us.

Male characteristics are those that are:
The decision makers.
The nerves of steel warrior.
The aggressor.
The one with honor.

Most importantly the “male” characteristics are the ones that do the acting, they are not acted upon.

Female characteristics:
They follow their man
Need rescuing.
Are the supporters of the warrior in the field
Sex objects or prizes
Weak.

Most importantly they don’t act they are acted upon. Meek.

Saying that a strong ass-kicking female is “sexless” is saying that she is not acting in a traditionally female way.

Likewise a female with a machine gun is not acting like a “girl”.
Say when foes a female go from being a girl to a woman? Would you call a 19 year old US marine a boy? What if he was a she? How about when she has a SAW pointed at you an d the safety off.

Yeah, girl carries the “cute little thing” idea behind it.

Pardon my language but this is feldergarb! Yes fledergarb!

Womanly was another word for weak and feeble. Our society for years defined any aggressive actions or toughness as inherently male. The old “boys will be boys” stuff.

Is a female attack dog charging you any less scary than a male? Phah! In a technological society such divisions are just silly.

Listen to me! I sound like one of those Cultures Studies hacks! What has this forum done to me! Why, why . . .

 

[The Hinterworlds Rambler]

I don't know that I am being understood, or just don't understand the understanding part...

I am not in favor of EITHER the "Damsel in Distress" nor the "Female Shaped Van Damme" I prefer "real" or perhaps "three dimensional". For me its more of a characterization thing than a gender thing.

There ARE conventions of Characterization at work all the time. I think some of these characterizations and concepts seemed geared towards a certain demographic, which at this point (though much less now than ever) has been consructed for males. No?

For a long time it seemed like Ursula G and a bunch of guys on the market. That is changing, and it should. I LIKE that it changes, because for a while it seemed like I would need to sit thru the "Alien" plot ad infinitum, but in different clothing.

So personally, I prefer "Good" characters, IE real, to some interchangeable archetype. I do not care if they are hermapohrodites, as long as they are real, and work as characters.

So we are on the same page, after the Third Viewing of the Series Firefly and Serenity, I can honestly say that it, in my opinion, sucks. It seems to favor "kooky" dialog and preprogrammed "quirky" characters offering no support to otherwise excellent effects.

I personally dislike the overall concept. It is a very anti-human show. We seem to be (to Joss) able to make Spaceships and settle other planets, but of course can't cure social evils like, oh, I don't know... Bank Robbery? It's just not a future I would want to live in. I am not saying there should be no conflict, but just less "Gunsmoke" or "Gilligan's Island" style conflict.

I also will not hear about how "Enterprise" was a good show. One character I didn't care about and have basically forgotten talked about Pie for five minutes. PIE! It was part of the script! I can accept a LOT ( I base this on watching the whole Voyager series, but not fondly, Lords, not fondly... ) but that is a lack of ideas, clear as day.

 

[TheEngineer]

Hi Baron,

honestly we shouldnt expect "real" characters in most TV shows anyway, wether boys or girls...
From the acting point of view, most stuff produced in our beloved SF-genre is just bullshit, at best "somehow convincing", good for entertainment, but thats it.
Thats why I just concentrate on visual effects and a bit on story, and reduce claims for in-depth chraracter presentations

So I guess this is a kind claim targeting problem.

Regards,

Mert

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by stofsk:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Perhaps it is the rise of the "Shero". It is how Ripley in Alien went from being a normal person in the first movie, to asskicking Rambolina by "aliens". To many, this seems like "empowerment",

Actually it is empowerment, because women back in those days weren't depicted as capable of fighting back. They were either sex objects, or villainesses who will stab you in the back.</font>[/QUOTE]Yes, Ripley from Alien(s), Sarah O'Connor from Terminator 2 (NOT from the first movie), Madeline from La Femme Nikita (TV series; as opposed to Nikita herself) and Delenn from Babylon 5 were great characters - my favorites actually - because they were empowered and (relatively) free women AND had character depth. Both were never sex objects - they were persons, and persons who take control of their lives. Hell, Babylon 5 even REVERSED the gender roles as Delenn usually ended up saving Sheridan's ass numerous times (and she was far more mature then him, too - I always thought that Sinclair was far more of her equal), instead of the other way around. Ripley always saved the day when "qualified" men (including the main male "hero" of Aliens, who got sprayed by acid) could not; she also showed the triumph of motherly instinct (the "mother bear" I spoke of earlier on) over manly militarism, gung-ho attitudes and greed.

Vasquese (sp?) was simply cardboard, no gender, no character. A very minor "NPC", but had participated in a VERY good joke.

The point where I agree with the Good Baron about the "Shero" concept is only when the movie/TV-show tries to create an action heroine while keeping her as a pure sex object at the same time - Xena: Warrior Princess, Wonder Woman and Lara Croft come to mind. Come on, chainmail bikini? Near-anorexic bodies? who could fight with it? The directors could not get rid of their sex-object stereotypes, but were forced by the changing society to have a female in an active role, so they created a mix of both. Tell me, would they put a male warrior in such a breast-exposing ARMOR? No, they object-ified Xena. This is why Xena has alot of adolescent male fans and very few female ones. This is also a problem with alot of RPG books: they illustrate females with illogically-exposed bodies ("chainmail bikini" for example), or, worse, nearly-anorexic women in warrior roles (you need to build up in order to fight; you need to eat in order to fight; women could easily become warriors but then their figure would not follow the current sex-objectifying fashion). A Shadowrun book called "Fields of Fire", for example, had on its cover several men in full armor and one female in a tight bodysuit. Attractive to adolescent male RPGers, not very attractive to women.

But back to our topic - I think that the three reasons for women to shy away from RPGs are:
1) RPGs are stereotyped as a "male thing".
2) Over-complex rules scare away most women I know - they prefer to focus on the story rather than on the rules.
3) Alot (but not all!) of young (usually ages 10-16) male RPGers are not very skilled in interacting with women and tend to scare them off with sexist attitudes and bad social skills.

 

[parmasson]

3) Alot (but not all!) of young (usually ages 10-16) male RPGers are not very skilled in interacting with women and tend to scare them off with sexist attitudes and bad social skills

Hey! I was, what I mean is...er, well...
I'm gonna go buy mre dice now.

 

[Golan2072]

Originally posted by Kurega Gikur:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />
3) Alot (but not all!) of young (usually ages 10-16) male RPGers are not very skilled in interacting with women and tend to scare them off with sexist attitudes and bad social skills

Hey! I was, what I mean is...er, well...
I'm gonna go buy mre dice now. </font>[/QUOTE]I hope that I haven't offended anyone, it's just my bad experience with immature munchkins that was speaking... Most RPGers aren't like that, but the ones who are give the rest a BAD REP.

 

[Mickazoid]

Originally posted by Employee 2-4601:
But back to our topic - I think that the three reasons for women to shy away from RPGs are:
1) RPGs are stereotyped as a "male thing".
2) Over-complex rules scare away most women I know - they prefer to focus on the story rather than on the rules.
3) Alot (but not all!) of young (usually ages 10-16) male RPGers are not very skilled in interacting with women and tend to scare them off with sexist attitudes and bad social skills.

As a child of the 70's, I can agree with all of the above. Sci fi was huge, but girls were somehow not quite 'invited' to join in. Princess Leia kicked enough ass to convince me that I could enjoy it - so I consciously rejected that social 'message'. Also my older cousin was like a brother to me, so gaming with him was a way to spend more time together.

And I was definitely averse to a deep respect for the rules for a long time - preferring rich storylines, etc., until I played in my cousin's RPG group with a major ruleslawyer. His character was always at the 'utmost' of what the rules would allow - literally, arguing for things like 'a tank' or 'a death ray satellite in orbit', etc. From that point on, I looked at the role of referee in a different way and since then I've looked at structured rules as a way to 'level the playing field'.

As far as the relative lack of socialization in some young men who RPG, that's definitely true - but a few of the most timid and antisocial gamers became really social people in our gaming group (that included wives, girlfriends, SCA people and generally a very diverse crowd).

As far as heroines are concerned - they are the very stuff of mythology. As an Amazonian woman (tall, athletic, unafraid to kick ass), I don't write my male and female characters much differently - which may be a flaw in my writing. If anything, I tend to write very thoughtful and 'feminine' personalities for some of my male characters - when referee'ing alpha male types, I often have to 'remind myself' to be less yielding/engaging and more gruff and reactionary.

 

[Klaus]

Mrs Emma Peel, anyone?

Or even Honor Blackman's character? Funnily enough she walked into a role written for a man (Ian Hendry).

My point is that when parts are wriiten , they should be written for a character, rather than a gender. Most parts for women seem to written for women. ie: girly victim, or gun-toting vixen in a catsuit. (And yes, Mrs Peel wore catsuits, but there was more going on in that show and that part for it to be the exception that proves the rule.)

Zoe is a good character - you could swap the gender's of her and Wash and it would make little difference.

Wilma Deering (Erin Gray). She got close to being a proper equal at times, despite the skintight suit (and, lets face it, we all prefer that to Gil Gerard in a body stocking), but was always undermined by the show's need to have a girly-girl in distress.

 

[Plankowner]

My 15 year-old plays with a group from his high school and there are 2 girls and 3 boys. I had NEVER seen 2 female RPG'ers in the same game before.

I wrote a couple of short stories when Babylon 5 was still in first runs. When I wrote those stories, I had a captain character, after I finished the story, it broke that ST:Voyager would have a female captain and all heck broke loose. I read several reports about how it shouldn't be that way. As a form of protest, I went back to my story, changed the Captain's name from Kevin to Katherine and changed all the he's to she's. Published the story on line, and not one person noticed that there was anything different about the character. I agree with Klaus on this, character is MUCH more important than GENDER when it comes to stories.

Wasn't there a movie made once where they wrote the story then switched all the genders of all the characters? I'm thinking it was some kind of gangster movie???