So, I regularly watch videos over at The Escapist, and among my favourite shows is Movie Bob's "Big Picture" which discusses many important themes and events linked to geek culture, but also often digs into tangential things that are going on or have gone on in society at large.

This week (well, actually it was last week but it's only just gone up on Youtube ) Movie Bob decided to discuss the topic of gender, and in particular the recurring backlash we keep seeing against the so-called "pink aisle" in toy stores / supermarkets etc.

Here's the episode for those who want to take a quick look:
Pink is not the problem

This is not the first time that Movie Bob has done an episode involving gender issues.  Additionally, others such as Jim Sterling on his show "The Jimquisition" have also discussed similar sorts of things, and it seems to me that geek culture (gamers, movie enthusiasts, comic book geeks etc) appears to be really at the forefront of questioning the long-held ideas of the binary gender system, and how gender is represented in various forms of entertainment - especially when said entertainment is directed towards the geekhood.

Personally, I think this is really positive for the trans* community, and I think Movie Bob hits the nail on the head with this episode.  I think it's great that people with a voice like him both "get it" and are prepared to talk about it with full force.  What particularly strikes me is that he points out that society is accepting the "girls can like guy stuff" side of things, but that guys are getting mixed messages about liking girl stuff.  It's also interesting the way he points out the subtle gender coding in the films 300 and The Hunger Games, and the bias towards the idea that "Male = good, Female = bad".  Honestly never thought about it quite in that way before but he's absolutely right imho.

So what do you all think both of geek culture's "taking up the baton" attitude on gender issues, and of Movie Bob's episode linked above?  because I personally think it's great that these things are being discussed in this way by my favourite group of people!

I disagree with some of his points here - "female bad, male good" is hardly the only - or main - trope in films, and I can remember at least as many big, brutish 'masculine' bad guys as effeminate ones. Bob is, IMO, picking examples to justify his viewpoint (seriously, how is 300 not meant to be Macho in a Can, and why is it bad to have things like that? Especially when counterpoint movies like Beauty and the Beast are lauded for making the masculine stereotype the bad guy, the strong female lead the good guy, and the male lead essentially an object to be acted upon?)
I also disagree with his Hunger Games assessment - there are effeminate bad guys, to be sure, but there are also hyper-masculine bad guys (District 1?), and Peeta is in many ways the embodiment of the classical effeminate character.

There's room for both, and saying 'not following gender norms is OK' should not automatically lead to 'following gender norms is not OK.' Let macho men and feminine women have their place in society. Don't destroy the old just because we've found a new.

Quote from: ZoeM on December 13, 2013, 10:02:15 AM
...There's room for both, and saying 'not following gender norms is OK' should not automatically lead to 'following gender norms is not OK.' Let macho men and feminine women have their place in society. Don't destroy the old just because we've found a new.

That's pretty much the point Bob is trying to make too.  Remember that this video is in response to the recurring backlash against the "Pink Aisle" / "Princess Culture" etc.  He even explicitly says that:

Quote
...I think it's important that the very positive anti-pink-aisle message that 'traditionally feminine things can be enjoyed by all' is not mis-applied or mis-heard as the rather more negative 'traditionally feminine things are *BAD*'

I don't think Bob is saying that having movies like 300 is a bad thing, but rather he's just highlighting how the notion of "masculine = good, feminine = bad" often tends to show up.  Exactly because it's a hyper-masculine movie is the reason why it serves as an obvious first example to demonstrate the point, which then serves as a springboard to point out the same sort of thing going on in movies you wouldn't immediately expect - in this case, the Hunger Games - which are held up (and rightly so, imho) as being pro-girl-power stories.  Again, I don't feel he's saying this is bad, he's just pointing out that the trope "masculine = good, feminine = bad" is dug in deep and isn't an easy thing to break down.

Are there hyper-masculine bad guys in the Hunger Games?  Yeh for sure.  But *MOST* (or at least "the most prominent") bad guys are hyper-feminine.  You raise a good point with Peeta being a feminine good guy (and I certainly agree with you there), but even there look at his role - he's portrayed as being (comparatively) weak, subordinate, the one who needs saving. He's pretty much filling the "princess trapped in a castle" role, even so far as admiring Katniss from afar and being in love with her without ever having actually spoke to her (just like the princess dreaming of Prince Charming without ever having actually met him - a joke which was highlighted in the Shrek films of course).  So yeh I agree with you that he's a feminine good guy, but even then he's still not portrayed in the most positive of light (not as negative as the bad guys of course, but there's still a subtle undertone of "pft, you wouldn't want to be this pitiful example of a person, would you?" woven into it).  ...At least that's how it comes across in the movies.  I've never read the books so maybe things come across differently there lol.

I agree that Beauty and the Beast is a good counter-example where femininity is shown in a positive light, but that's part of the "Princess Culture" which others are striking out against and are saying is "bad" because it reinforces the gender stereotypes.  Bob's point (which I agree with) is basically that that sort of thing isn't bad, and is actually ok if chosen freely.

Just to throw something else into the mix:  I think Gandalf from LoTR / The Hobbit is actually probably one of the best examples of a feminine good guy.  He's kind, compassionate, loving and caring.  While he's not the "leader" (usually seen as a male trait) like Aragorn is, he does subtly guide things from the background (much like the traditional image of a nation's leader being influenced by his wife), and he's not violent or aggressive 90% of the time (only fights when he has no other choice, and even then he tends to do it with brains rather than brawn).  I'd say those are all traditionally feminine traits, but unlike Peeta from the Hunger Games, Gandalf can certainly not be accused of being "weak" or "subordinate" or "needs saving" (he fought off a freaking Balrog single-handedly for gods sake! ).  I've always associated Gandalf with my own mum funnily enough, but until I started thinking about things in this way I didn't really understand why.  Now I see it's because he fills that "Guardian Angel" sort of a role (just like mum does xx ), which I personally always associate as being a positively feminine role.  Is that just me though?  Or do others feel the same?

I have to say that was great. I don't think I've ever heard anyone speak that quickly and still present a coherent argument.  I especially liked what he had to say about coding.  It's far too common that this sort of "coding" is used as a substitute for character development.  It isn't as apparent in characters like Gandalf and Katniss because there's plenty of screen time to develop the relationship to the viewer... but introduce a villain who you want the audience to instantly hate and who gets marginal screen time...  well just make 'em fat, foreign and fabulous.  There you go... instant villain.

I'm glad to see someone calling this out.  Using these sort of casual prejudices may be an easy way to develop character, but it also serves to reinforce them.

Anyone else familiar with the game Ico?

For those who aren't, it's very elemental, basically Boy Save Girl: The Game.  But it's good.  It's really good.

The problem isn't traditional gender roles in literature (including film and games of course).  It's the volume of junk that takes them and doesn't even try to say anything worthwhile. 


This is Ico: Boy saves Girl, because it's the only thing left for him.  His family and community have rejected him - why? - we don't know whether it was his fault or not, but he's sacrificed to this huge, mysterious castle for reasons we don't know beyond that's what happens to kids with horns.  Before long he meets Girl, and they can't understand each other's speech.  Again, we don't know much about her, but she seems to have some connection to the castle.  At the same time, it's hostile to her as well.  Their abilities, histories, challenges are different, their communication is frustrated - and neither can progress without the other.  I get the real sense that they're not trying so hard to stay alive for their own sakes - Ico seems resigned to his fate and he doesn't try to escape his captors in the intro - but for each other.

All that, plus I admit I'm a sucker for the save-couches.  D'awww!



This is boring: Boy saves Girl because that's what boys do, duh.  It's like, why should I care?