#and of course women can and often do perpetuate misogynistic tropes and ideas in their writing and men can be aware of and avoid them

[gouinisme]

i started almost exclusively borrowing graphic novels written and illustrated by women at the library and it's 1) made me realise how few there are 2) made me realise even more how shitty the characterisation and design of female characters is in most stuff made by men 3) led me to scour the aisles for hidden gems i wouldn't have picked up otherwise so i do recommend

[hope-erinn]

Gaming Communities: Social Gaming and Live Streaming

Week 10

Gaming has always been a part of my life, I wouldn’t consider myself a gamer by any means, but playing video games has been an interest of mine since my first Nintendo Gameboy in the noughties. This early indoctrination means that gaming has become a “familiar and resonant experience for me” (Taylor, 2018 p.2). Though recently the effect that video games has had on popular culture is more overt and noticeable than ever, with games like Pokémon Go and animal crossing, dominating the gaming sphere and social media culture, bringing a new “cultural legitimacy to the gaming industry” (Keogh 2016).

Image Source - https://gph.is/g/4L52KkR

The earliest incarnation of commercial video gaming emerged in 1967, called the “Brown Box” created by Ralph Baer, which allowed two users to control cubes, which chased each other across the screen; at this early stage, there was already a multiplayer aspect to gaming,. Fast forward to today in 2020, we see and massive variety of video gaming options, and a complex and establishing gaming culture, which is intertwined with popular culture, including live streaming to the masses though platforms such as twitch.

Demographics has always been a very important aspect to gaming, with your average gamer being envisioned as young, male and white. This perpetuated idea of white gamers is a direct result of the origins of gaming. Gaming consoles and gaming was limited to those who has the access and means, usually directly associated with economic and financial status, thus more often than not limited to the upper class; those who at the time were consequentially white. Though nowadays, the gaming community is diverse and complex, being inclusive to a variety of people from different religious backgrounds, races, genders, sexual orientations, also accessible to those who have a disability.

However, with all good, there too is the bad, the negative and problematic side of gaming. Whilst inclusion and accessibility has improved massively over time, there are still very present and raw issues associated with representation within games.

Image Source - https://tenor.com/view/harry-potter-what-matters-the-part-we-choose-to-act-on-thats-who-we-really-are-gif-15432950

The gaming industry is very often “criticised for being misogynistic”, despite a large amount of the gaming community being made up of women (Sainsbury 2013). A high percentage of video gamers are women, with 40% of regular players being women, and yet women are often seeing the same repetitive and tired gendered tropes and archetypes, some of my favourites being, “the damsel in distress, the scantily clad adventurer, and the disempowered sex worker” (Hamilton 2019). Many of these same demeaning and repeated tropes are also a reality for people of colour as well, with much of black representation being either gang related or associated with villainy; these tropes are offensive and have detrimental effects on those who see themselves represented in distasteful ways.  

Image Source - http://www.feedzig.com/top-seven-controversial-shows-mtv/

Another aspect of women’s portrayal in games, is they are more often than not “targets of violence, or victims” (Hamilton 2019). This glorification of grotesques violence against women, is problematic and quite frankly disgusting; a popular example of this is Grand Theft Auto, where you gain achievements and are rewarded for violently killing sex workers on the street.

I am not saying that violence doesn’t have its time of day in games, however the way in which it is portrayed is essential. For example, my favourite game at the moment, Assassins Creed Odyssey, of course has violence involved, being an assassin and all, however the violence isn’t gendered, obscenely gratuitous, or personal. In fact, Assassins Creed Odyssey includes an amazing platform that is inclusive, where you can play as a woman, man, and make decisions exactly the way you wish, you can even decide your sexual orientation. Though some claim this ‘inclusive revisionism’ to be false and forced, though I disagree. I believe that despite a lack of exact historical accuracy, the game is progressive and is a positive force, in a very male centric gaming industry.

Image Source - https://gph.is/2nANGsj

Another aspect of female representation is the unfair and unrealistic representation of the female body, where game developers “use provocative female characterisation to sell their games” (GameDesigning 2020). This is exampled by the evolution of Lara Croft’s character design over the years, coming far from your stereotypical portrayal of a barely dressed adventurer. The latest 3 part series of Tomb Raider games have revolutionised Lara Crofts portrayal, now we see a accurate female body, who actually looks like she could survive a trip to a jungle; This is also supported by Alicia Vikander’s portrayal in the latest movie, a portrayal which saw much negative attention her lack of curves, but instead tone and actual muscle (which lets be real, is what an actual female adventurer would look like). This hate that was received is just one example, of the ‘male gaze’ being shattered, instead men had to see what a real women looks like; such a refreshing portrayal to see on screen.  

Image Source - https://gph.is/2eXQglp

I got a little carried away there, because the gaming community and industry is just an amazing reflection of society and todays culture. The gaming community is diverse and colourful, and I can’t wait to see more progress and development in terms of representation in the near future.

References

Chikhani, R 2015, ‘The History of Gaming: An Evolving Community’, techcrunch, 1 Novemebr, viewed 23 May, <https://techcrunch.com/2015/10/31/the-history-of-gaming-an-evolving-community/>

Game Designing, 2020, ‘How Gaming Culture Has Envolved’, GameDesigning, 5 April, viewed  23 May, <https://www.gamedesigning.org/gaming/culture/>

Hamilton, J 2019, ‘Female Representation in Video Games: How are we doing?’, gamasutra, 24 July, viewed 23 May, <https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/JoriHamilton/20190724/347246/Female_Representation_in_Video_Games_How_Are_We_Doing.php>

Keogh, B 2016, ‘You can’t ignore the cultural power of video games any longer’, ABC News, 6 April, viewed 23 May, <https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-06/keogh-why-you-should-care-about-video-games/7303744>

Sainsbury, M 2013, ‘GTA V is realised, gets (rightfully) cristused for being misogynistic: fools throw tantrum’, DigitallyDownloaded, 17 September, viewed 23May, <http://www.digitallydownloaded.net/2013/09/gta-v-is-released-gets-rightfully.html>

Taylor, TL 2018, ‘Broadcasting ourselves’, Watch Me Play: Twitch and the Rise of Game Live Streaming, Princeton University Press, pp.1-23

Wunsch, S 2018, ‘How Lara Croft has evolved over the years’, dw, 15 March, viewed 23 May, <https://www.dw.com/en/how-lara-croft-has-evolved-over-the-years/a-42976395>

[palmviolet]

hii! may i just ask you why/how the mom steve meme is sexist?

thank you for asking so politely!! i’m happy to talk about it (and i think it ought to be discussed).

okay, so let’s talk about mom steve.

steve is a teenage boy. the foundations of his character were set as the stereotypical 80s high school douche, a kind of foil to jonathan, whom nancy was always ultimately going to choose over steve - regardless of how steve’s character developed later on. then the duffers met joe keery, and decided to take his character in a different direction. he starts the series as your high school bully, though the take on the trope is more nuanced than it was originally, but by the end of season 1 he’s starting to redeem himself.

this is all good. it’s more interesting, actually, than the more typical archetype fulfilled by billy in season 2. the duffers are all about nuance.

so let’s go to joyce in season 1. joyce embodies another archetype - the stricken, frantic, hysterical mother. the narrative could easily dismiss her, but instead a large proportion of the series is from her perspective: we see her use of the christmas lights not as a delusion but as a rational, logical experiment. we as the audience are desperate for the others to believe her. so here, too, there is another subversion of a trope - and when her beliefs are validated by hopper, literally part of the institutions that dismiss her (he is ex-army, the police chief, a man), she is still a fundamental part of uncovering the mystery and finding her son. he doesn’t take over. without her, they never would have succeeded.

all this she does in aid of her child. she gets called crazy, delusional, a mess even by her own son, jonathan - but she doesn’t give up.

to summarise so far - in season 1, both steve and joyce subvert tropes. joyce overcomes institutional sexism by her strength and belief as a mother.

onto season 2. the crisis - the monster du jour - isn’t so glaring this time, but creeps up on the narrative. will is present and for a while joyce can be more relaxed. she has a boyfriend now - bob - and they seem happy together. we learn than she and hopper went to high school together. we discover she - and the other characters - are still heavily traumatised by the events of season 1. nancy is too, and she’s struggling in her relationship with steve. but instead of framing their breakup around her trauma, around how they simply don’t work together anymore because they’ve both grown to be different people, the show seems to favour steve and make it less than amicable. we are made to feel sorry for steve, poor, dumped steve, instead of placing the two on equal ground.

@jancys-blue-bayou made a good post about this a while back, when the teaser for s3 came out. in it they discuss steve in season 2; ‘they began […] by making him “a loser” through his relationship with nancy ending in a way that humiliated his frail male ego and then king steve losing his crown to billy, so he’s not popular in high school now. just like jonathan’s never been.’ essentially they begin to shape steve into what jonathan used to be - a loner, an outcast, someone the audience should sympathise with. the kind of character stranger things has always been about.

meanwhile the whole mess with will begins, and joyce has no other focus once again - her relationship with bob falls by the wayside, unless he becomes relevant to will again (calling him up about the tape, inviting him in to help them solve the map). within the narrative this is perfectly understandable - her son is going through something horrible, again, of course he’s all she cares about - but we lose any sense of joyce the person, again. she’s just joyce the mom. contrast this with hopper, who is treated very differently by the narrative. he has multiple plotlines, emotional beats. as @nancykali puts it, ‘the duffers didn’t want to deal with their only main adult female character having a storyline outside of will and hopper. oh but wait - hopper could get his storylines as joyce’s love interest, a support for will, and an adoptive parent to el though, couldn’t he? that’s unbalanced and sexist storytelling.’

so, to recap - while joyce is reduced down to just the Mom (which was fine in s1, because of the urgency of the situation and the fact that this was a new show, none of the characters had been developed much yet, but starts to become alarming in s2) which by default makes her less relatable, less of a figure for the audience to connect with, steve is deliberately cast as a multi-faceted, sympathetic character. joyce’s ‘story is no less than hopper’s but it’s treated as lesser by the canon because she’s a woman and her role is Mother First, Human Second. but if a man decides to be a father he deserves to be lauded, where for a mother to adopt a little girl, that’s too predictable to some people.’ this last bit is in reference to hopper, but it works for steve too. steve giving attention to the kids and acting protective over them for what amounts to one afternoon is celebrated far beyond anything joyce has done, because it’s breaking type. and sure, that can be a good thing. when the series first came out i really enjoyed babysitter steve.

but that’s all he is. a babysitter. joyce is a real mom, and yet because she’s a woman, that’s her job description. but because steve is a teenage boy, who used to be something of a bully, he gets praise far beyond what he might deserve.

being a mother is what drives joyce’s narrative arc - and that’s wrong, and misogynistic, because she deserves to be fleshed out and given other plotlines too - and her character would literally have nothing without it. it feels like a slap in the face, then, for it to be steve who is labelled ‘best mom’ - steve, who has multiple facets to his character, steve who is a teenage boy, steve who is affluent and male and up until recently embodied the trope of 80s highschool bully. joyce is quite literally a single mom and we are shown that she often struggles to make ends meet. she’s had nervous breakdowns in the past, she works weekends and nights and holidays, she relies on jonathan almost as a co-parent to will. she’s a flawed mother, but she does her goddamn best because her life is hard - and despite all this she finds time to actively know and engage with her sons’ interests, to play with them, to have jokes with them. this is being a good mom.

‘mom steve’ is perpetuated by fandom, but it is rooted in the show. take the first s3 teaser: ‘they have him work a menial job that has fans of the mom meme write stuff like “steve got a minimum wage job to take care of his five kids”’. both joyce and jonathan work/have worked menial jobs to support their family, possibly both at minimum wage - while steve is very notably and explicitly affluent. in fact if any character in the show who is not a mom deserves to be called one, it’s jonathan, who is in all but name a co-parent to will. i think @jancys-blue-bayou and @nervousalligator have written on this in the past.

however, applying the term ‘mom’ to these male characters at all is sexist by itself. it promotes the idea that only women can be caregivers - that parenting is only the duty of the mother, and is nothing to do with men. this is highly misogynistic, links back to age-old gender roles that it’s high time were erased, and yet the meme perpetuates them. steve is male. if anything, he should be called ‘dad steve’ - but people won’t run with that, because it’s all a joke. because motherhood is a joke. joyce is defined by being a mother and yet she gets no recognition for it, while steve is not a mother, has multiple plotlines and facets beyond that meme, and yet is lauded as the best mom of all.

it’s actually a manner of woobifying him. he’s not a perfect character, not of them are, yet this ‘mom’ caricature somehow strives to paint him as such. it’s the same with hopper, in his parenting of el - his obvious flaws are dismissed across the fandom because of sweet father-daughter moments. i love hopper as a character, and i can appreciate steve, but often people simply don’t understand them. as @paris-geller-was-straightwashed puts it, ‘y’all will soften the males of this show all the way down until they literally don’t have any sharp edges anymore.’ the male characters become perfect, can do no wrong, while the women are criticised for their every mistake (see the treatment of nancy post s2).

it’s a cycle. the show began it, when they tried to promote steve the best way they knew how - by shaping him into a prototype of jonathan, except without any flaws and much, much richer - and the fandom picked it up and ran with it. this led to fanservice, with the scoops ahoy teaser and the stranger things twitter (don’t think i’ve forgiven the mothers’ day tweet). with any luck the fandom will wise up a little or the creators will stop pandering to them, but we’ll have to see the outcome of s3. regardless, it’s time to stop calling steve a mom. if anything, he’s a big brother to dustin - yet another role that was somewhat snatched from jonathan (see the scene at the end of s1 when jonathan comes down to mike’s basement at the end of the d&d game - he’s a big brother figure to all the boys). people call steve a mom because he gave dustin advice - horrible, sexist advice (‘treat ‘em like you don’t care’) - and put a tea towel on his shoulder. that’s it.

so maybe appreciate steve as his own character, a babysitter at most, because you’re doing him a disservice by woobifying him and calling him a ‘mom’. appreciate joyce, who is an actual mom, and maybe start lobbying the duffers for more development for their female characters rather than for more sexist memes.

TLDR; joyce is defined by being a mother and yet she gets no recognition for it, while steve is not a mother, has multiple plotlines and facets beyond that meme, and yet is lauded as the best mom of all.

[juniper-tree]

writing life, 2: ghosts

(long post warning)

In a previous post wherein I talked about my NaNo failure and my writing process, I mentioned there were other things I hoped to do with my writing this year (and beyond). I’m an ambitious, driven person and have always had Big Plans.

All those plans have been hugely influenced by a project I took on earlier this year, and what I learned from it.  

I became a romance ghostwriter.  And then I quit.

Way back in the winter, I alluded to a writing project I was in the middle of, with an established author. Well, this was it. I was her ghostwriter.

I’m abiding by the NDA we agreed upon, though even if we had not, naming names in this context is tacky. So no titles, no links—just my experience and what I went through.

I submitted writing samples through a site, then had a few back and forth emails with the author to see if I would be a good fit. I was, and she hired me to write a novella for her second author brand.

I didn’t know either of her pen names, or her real name. It made sense to me she wouldn’t want to divulge her professional name and possibly be outed for hiring a ghostwriter until she knew it would work out.

Her main brand/name, she said, had a very specific theme. The second brand would be more contemporary, allow her to experiment with different styles and tropes. That made sense to me, too. I imagined her established brand as a Tessa Dare-style historical with all the expectations that would carry. Perhaps she wanted to publish contemporary stories with a little more spice, under a new name?

My assumptions were very wrong. But I’ll get to that.

Problem was, the demand for her content was so high that she could not fulfill it all. She needed a ghost to give her more to publish. I would come up with the idea, she would ok it, I would write it, she would tweak it, I would be paid, her readers would be happy. Decent arrangement.

And it really was. I don’t have a moral problem with ghostwriting, clearly. Some people do, and that’s fair. It is a lie, in a way. It upends the expected contract between reader and author of authenticity (though that’s questionable much of the time, regardless). 

There is a lot of abuse in it—plagiarism, for one; absolutely terrible pay for the work, for another.

Of course, it doesn’t have to be like that. This wasn’t. I went in with my eyes open about the system. I asked for what I felt was a fair price for my level of skill and what my time was worth. It was far above the dismal average that ghostwriters typically get.

I got it, without any experience or history, on the strength of my writing. She also made it very clear she did not want to perpetuate the content factory mentality of so many self-published, ghostwritten romances. This had to be good, original work, and I would be compensated fairly.

She was generous with money and with time, and very helpful in shaping my work into what she needed for her brand. No complaints about her as a person or from a work perspective.

When the work was finished, she was happy, and so was I, despite it being pretty far outside my area of interest. It was a decent story, it had feels, it had sexy times, it had a nice HEA.

I made a fairly strong attempt to subvert some of the more odious aspects of many mainstream, contemporary, heterosexual romances—iffy consent, power imbalances, misogyny, conservative ideas about money.  

That was probably my first mistake.

A lot of my subversions were changed or edited out. 

To give a minor example, I specifically noted many times that the male hero was pale. This was for situational character reasons—as well as the fact that I grow weary of tan, toned beefcakes as default in romance.

The author changed every “pale” to “tan.” Heaven forbid the sexy man not have a tan. (I think she put more muscles on him, too, but I don’t specifically recall.)

This sounds petty. Perhaps it is. But it’s also emblematic of other, larger changes that were made to fit the romance mold, as opposed to allowing anything slightly left of center.

There are many reasons romance is so popular, and one is, obviously, the comfort: of falling into repeated patterns and conventions, of reading your favorite tropes endlessly, of not having to think too hard about how things fit together. I appreciate all of that. 

We find it in fanfiction, too—we revel in it.

But there’s a reason why overturning even minor subversions bothers me. I’ll get to that, too.

Like I said, the author was happy. She wanted to continue working with me on a long-term basis, give me a co-writing credit for future works, help grow my own audience in the genre, etc. All very generous and great.

Problem was, when I saw the published work, I finally found out her pen names, so I could see her other books.

Not only were they nothing like what I had written (some of the reviews said it was “so different” for this author, which was hilarious), they made me very uncomfortable.

Again, under an NDA, so I can’t list specific details. There were just endless dominant, alpha-male, ultra-rich men who have disturbingly obsessive and coercive relationships with vulnerable young women. Money is involved in the relationship in some way. The heroines are nobody, the heroes are Somebody. Aren’t these women lucky to snag these guys?

The fact that I can say all that and have it be completely non-specific to any particular romance author is extremely telling of the problems of the genre. I could literally be talking about EL James (I’m not - her bad writing appears to be her own).

I read/skimmed a couple of them, and I could see an attempt was made to “sweeten” the heroes so they were vulnerable (or pitiable, really).  But the tropes themselves are toxic.

The author herself was great? We even had an early discussion on what were complete no-gos for romance, and judging by that I thought we were on the same page regarding what’s creepy and what’s romantic. Apparently not.

Who wants to read this? Who wants to write it? Lots of people, that’s who.

This is a chicken and egg thing, though, isn’t it? Someone wrote it first, way back when. 

Romance fans (and I count myself among them!) like to say that a lot of the worst, most “rapey” novels are way out of fashion, that the terrible misogyny is gone, that there’s a new kind of romance that people want to read today.  

And that is definitely true for a certain percentage of traditionally published romance novels. There are lots of good ones, unproblematic ones, progressive ones.

Please go read those—they are so fun and enjoyable and will make you feel good.

But what of the rest? The romance readers read and buy these toxic tropes. The authors keep putting them out, because that’s what readers want. The readers keeping buying it. The cycle continues.

(I want to go into this further with fanfiction, but that’s for another post.)

The fact that even the most minor of my attempts at subversion were squashed was really disheartening. It wasn’t that my writing was changed—I couldn’t care less about that. It was that the slightest diversion from the carved-in-stone Alpha Male Romance Idea was clearly unacceptable. Not to mention the larger diversions—I did make those, too.

I made my hero perfectly successful at what he did for a living, though not excessively so—but I also made my heroine perfectly successful and doing just fine, thanks. In the final work? He’s secretly a billionaire. He can just take care of her without all that pesky work. That depressed me.

I was cringing at the idea that I’d have to keep stuffing in worse and worse tropes, toxic relationships, misogynistic overtones, conservative philosophies, and scary power imbalances just to make some money.

This isn’t an audience I want.

The thought of reinforcing these ideas in any way threw me into a major crisis of conscience. I just couldn’t do it.

Like I said, it was a great and generous deal—for someone else. For someone who likes this kind of thing, or is a bit more mercenary than I am. I’m not willing to go there.

So that’s basically the end of ghostwriting for me. I have lots of my own ideas that are non-toxic, fun, and maybe people will even want to read them. But if they would rather read the stuff I hate, that’s their business. I won’t be a part of it.

Personally, I like lots of things in romance and fanfiction that are fantasies, that are not the ways in which I want to live my life—bad heroes and troubled women, relationships that make you go “hmmm,” problematic-ness and intense, dark passions, and all that stuff that’s over the top. I get it!

It’s just that I want subtlety and shades (not of Grey) and all the real dirt and grime and the beauty and joy that make your heart race and your mind wander. Not just the stamped, approved, here’s-what-you-get dosage of unexamined clichés. (Examined clichés are often very good.)

I learned so much from this process. Not only what my own limits are, but what I really want to do, by seeing up close what I do not. So I am grateful for the whole episode, but happy to be past it.  

On to greener pastures, and work which makes me proud.