Desire is a strange thing. On the one hand, as the Buddhists say, desire invites unhappiness; we can never have the things we want, and even if we do, the act of receiving extinguishes the desire we felt and leaves us empty and suffering. On the other hand, desire keeps us going. Desire is what makes us get up in the morning; I want food, I want to read, I want to learn, I want to sleep.
Way back somewhere on this blog, I quote Ray Bradbury when he talks of wanting - of wanting a donkey, of wanting jewels, of wanting a woman, and, finally, wanting sleep. Sometimes, I think, all of us desire that final sleep. But then we snap out of it and recognize this desire as a vain and foolish desire. Why? Because it interferes with our other desires. A dead man can't eat or read. We're further kept away from death by the twin of desire - fear.
Sigmund Freud thought people were motivated by two forces: Eros and Thanatos. How to interpret these forces varies from person to person, but one possible way to interpret them is as desire and fear. We want, and we fear. Without desire, without fear, we would come to a standstill. The only reason why we keep going when our desires are fulfilled is that they invite fear of losing what we have found. The only reason why we keep going when our fears come to pass is that they invite a desire to undo that fearful, undesirable event.
There are many who say one should live ones' life according to ones' desires. Do what you wish shall be the whole of the law. I do not object to this philosophy - it is a good thing that people are allowed to pursue their desires. But why is it so, that fear is seen as inferior to its twin, desire? Why do we see the pursuit of happiness as more important than the escape from unhappiness? They are not necessarily the same thing.
Desire is no longer shameful, as it once were; if I want to love a man, it is nothing I should be ashamed of. If I want to stay home and play video games, it may be shameful in certain circles, but overall, society is tolerant of most desires so long as they don't bring harm to others. Fear, on the other hand, is deeply shameful. It is true that fear can limit people, even cripple them - but this is also true with desire. Greed is just as dangerous a shackle as is cowardice.
They key with desire, of course, is to desire in moderation. Your life will be unfulfilled if your only desire is alcohol. It is shameful and unhealthy to be addicted. A man who sleeps with other men is healthy in society's eyes, but a homosexual man who is addicted to sex is unhealthy, because it ultimately hurts him. Could it not be so with fear, as well? Fearing insects is not bad; fearing them so much that you can't sleep for fear of a single mosquito is bad, because it hurts you - it deprives you of sleep.
Wanting and fearing, it seems to me, are yin and yang of human behaviour. Why, then, am I ashamed of my fears?
torsdag 11 november 2010
tisdag 9 november 2010
fredag 5 november 2010
The Male Gaze and RPGs
Caution: What follows may cause reactions of “Well duh”, particularly if you are a woman.
A long time ago, I had a discussion with Nightflyer in which she mentioned that she found it easier to make male characters than female, because a female character felt like it had more assumptions built into it. I understood what she meant, but thought it a little bit ridiculous – sure, I thought, Hollywood women are always a certain way, but how does that restrict you from making any kind of female character you want?
Then, a few weeks later when I spoke to S. (whom I unfortunately don't have a secret code name for) the womanizing swordsman, he mentioned how it was more difficult to put yourself into the mindset of a female character, and I thought that this is perhaps true – as a man, I have absolutely zero knowledge of some aspects of a woman's life. I thought back to my conversation with Nightflyer, though, and wondered why the reverse wouldn't be true – after all, a woman has absolutely zero knowledge of some aspects of a man's life.
Then today, for unrelated reasons, I decided to do some deeper research of the concept of the Male Gaze. I had heard of this concept before, but I thought it boiled down basically to “women are sexualized in most works of art, because the artist expects the viewer to be male”. This is of course old hat, but the theory actually runs deeper than this. It essentially states that “most works of art are created from the point of view of a heterosexual male, even if the artist isn't a heterosexual male”. The fact that women are sexualized in art is just a symptom of this deeper undercurrent; if the artwork is made through the lens of a heterosexual male, it's natural that women would be portrayed as sexually desirable because to a heterosexual male, they are. The work of art is designed to appeal to a heterosexual male as well, of course, and for this reason women are made more beautiful – but it also serves to reinforce that “You, the viewer, are supposed to be a heterosexual man.”
That is, the Male Gaze theory doesn't just state that “Most writers are male”. It actually states – to artist and reader alike – that most movies, books, et cetera are written with an implicit message of “even if you are not a straight man, you should think like one.” I won't go into further detail explaining the theory – there's lots to be read about it all around the intarwebs – but there are numerous examples. If there's no particular reason for the main character to belong to a particular sex, you make him a straight male as a default. This helps the viewer think like a straight man, irrespective of whether they actually are one or not, which is the “goal” of a lot of fiction according to this theory.
I guess you can see where this is leading: My hypothesis is that the Male Gaze applies even in roleplaying games. What Nightflyer said basically translates into “It's difficult to make a female character, because female protagonists in fiction are not the default, so there's just so little material to take from.” Essentially, a woman has more experience being a man, even if she's never pretended to be a man, because there's just so much fiction written from that perspective. Even in roleplaying games, women are “the second sex” - the alternative rather than the default – even if your own sex happens to be female.
What do you think?
A long time ago, I had a discussion with Nightflyer in which she mentioned that she found it easier to make male characters than female, because a female character felt like it had more assumptions built into it. I understood what she meant, but thought it a little bit ridiculous – sure, I thought, Hollywood women are always a certain way, but how does that restrict you from making any kind of female character you want?
Then, a few weeks later when I spoke to S. (whom I unfortunately don't have a secret code name for) the womanizing swordsman, he mentioned how it was more difficult to put yourself into the mindset of a female character, and I thought that this is perhaps true – as a man, I have absolutely zero knowledge of some aspects of a woman's life. I thought back to my conversation with Nightflyer, though, and wondered why the reverse wouldn't be true – after all, a woman has absolutely zero knowledge of some aspects of a man's life.
Then today, for unrelated reasons, I decided to do some deeper research of the concept of the Male Gaze. I had heard of this concept before, but I thought it boiled down basically to “women are sexualized in most works of art, because the artist expects the viewer to be male”. This is of course old hat, but the theory actually runs deeper than this. It essentially states that “most works of art are created from the point of view of a heterosexual male, even if the artist isn't a heterosexual male”. The fact that women are sexualized in art is just a symptom of this deeper undercurrent; if the artwork is made through the lens of a heterosexual male, it's natural that women would be portrayed as sexually desirable because to a heterosexual male, they are. The work of art is designed to appeal to a heterosexual male as well, of course, and for this reason women are made more beautiful – but it also serves to reinforce that “You, the viewer, are supposed to be a heterosexual man.”
That is, the Male Gaze theory doesn't just state that “Most writers are male”. It actually states – to artist and reader alike – that most movies, books, et cetera are written with an implicit message of “even if you are not a straight man, you should think like one.” I won't go into further detail explaining the theory – there's lots to be read about it all around the intarwebs – but there are numerous examples. If there's no particular reason for the main character to belong to a particular sex, you make him a straight male as a default. This helps the viewer think like a straight man, irrespective of whether they actually are one or not, which is the “goal” of a lot of fiction according to this theory.
I guess you can see where this is leading: My hypothesis is that the Male Gaze applies even in roleplaying games. What Nightflyer said basically translates into “It's difficult to make a female character, because female protagonists in fiction are not the default, so there's just so little material to take from.” Essentially, a woman has more experience being a man, even if she's never pretended to be a man, because there's just so much fiction written from that perspective. Even in roleplaying games, women are “the second sex” - the alternative rather than the default – even if your own sex happens to be female.
What do you think?
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)