Pairing Meta: The Appeal of Snake/Otacon from a Male Perspective
Whilst I am still working on my second story (thanks to Khronos_Keeper and Imre_Nico for agreeing to be my beta-buddies), I decided to do something I promised to do for a long time: an essay about Snake/Otacon slash from a male perspective. I managed to write this pretty quickly, so if you need clarification/elaboration/etc, feel free to ask.
Essay ( Read more... )
Essay ( Read more... )
Well, this isn't an issue but an interesting note:
First, the MGS series is a niche series. It is not insanely popular amongst huge segments of the general population.
Not "huge segments, no, but I do hear about it on the street more often than other games, with the exception of Halo and Guitar Hero.
These factors lead at least some support to the tentative hypothesis that most male MGS fans are more intelligent than average, and probably enthusiastic hardcore gamers. In short, it is likely that many of them are 'nerds.'
...This is quite the generalization. Why are you assuming that they're probably "enthusiastic hardcore gamers"? And why are many of them likely "'nerds'"? Do you have statistics? Have you taken a poll? If you were presenting this in a "oh hey lol this is what I think" way I might not bother asking for more support, but you claim to be asserting yourself (and your writing) in an academic manner. And, well, I just don't see much support for this theory at all. I agree with parts of it, yes, but there's nothing of real substance to it - just your thoughts which is totally okay but at least acknowledge that they are simply just that! Thoughts!
Many radical feminist (note the 'radical') scholars
I'm pretty sure there are different movements even within radical feminism. It might be nice to explain your own bias plus whatever radical feminist group you're talking about.
Also, why are you talking about radical feminism so much? I get the contrast, but you're overplaying it to the point of it becoming a side you're needlessly arguing against for...what?
So, what do men see as the essential characteristic of men? The answer is physical prowess, composed essentially of physical strength, stamina and resistance to physical pain. Hence the fact that team sports and their associated pack-animal behavior become the hallmark of traditional masculinity. In short, the Apollonian, the mental, the rational, has been culturally emasculated.
...Why is physical prowess the essential characteristic of men? Do you have support? What about big time CEOs raking in the bucks, practically top of what is seen as a man's world? And all the leading and admired men in this world. Are they so because they're physically strong? And women who are into and participate in sports. Are they perceived as masculine because of that?
Reply
I'm not sure if you realize this because you are a man and may have some unconscious gender bias, but for some reason (and I'm not the only one), this comes across as incredibly insulting to women. It's unfortunate that your gender probably plays a big role in how it comes across since I know what you mean. The execution and implication of it is just...jarring I suppose. Just as, huh? And you secretly long for Apollo to regain his manhood? So you can be seen as equal? You may think, perhaps from being a bisexual, emasculated nerd, that you understand these things, maybe emphasize with women (in general) for not being top dog (traditionally male, and why the hell is that desirable anyway?). But by inherently being born with a penis and raised as such, I really don't think that you do. While incredibly small and minor, that comment was very telling about your attitude towards women (not simply lumped with yourself in the "not masculine" category). But maybe I'm getting huffy over nothing.
Irrespective of this, the Emasculation of the Apollonian is a painful thing for the male nerd to confront. He has to live in a culture that regards him as a lesser man than those that bully him.
HA.
HA.
HA.
...This goes in with my above tl;dr. I feel no pity or sympathy.
Although feminism has freed women from these roles
DID YOU SERIOUSLY JUST SAY THAT? SERIOUSLY? I admit "gender roles" for women are more fluid (like it's perfectly acceptable to be a working woman or to be a housewife) but goddamn if you don't hear disparaging comments just because you're a certain gender! Nobody complains about men drivers, you know.
However, another way to do this is to live vicariously through another man, one that does fit the classical gender roles: Solid Snake. The male nerd, if he likes MGS, can indeed prove himself worthy by being, through the magic of video games, transformed into the heroic, invisible, unstoppable super-soldier we all know and love.
It may be my own bias that I think this is true (and pretty pathetic). Do you enjoy staring at that sculpted ass so much? Anyway, this observation is pretty much in line with why it seems that so many fail male gamers seemed to hate playing as Raiden in MGS2. ...But then they think Raiden in MGS4 is so bad ass despite the effeminate face, high heels, and long nails so IDK MAN. Maybe it's because he has a sword! PHALLIC SYMBOL. And he's instantly cool again? ...I don't know, if this is true, I'm pretty glad I'm a lesbian. You guys are messed up.
This sounds very, very much like many, if not most, MGS fanboys (and possibly quite a few MGS fangirls).
Support please? Even just observations instead of stating it like it's fact or something.
oh lmfao rp journal comment ._.;
Reply
As for hearing about the games on the street, some of this depends on the crowd you tend to spend your time with. MGS is also heavily marketed. However yes, I agree it is a pretty famous game.
Now, onto your empirical criticism. I am making the judgement that MGS is a hardcore game because its not exactly an accessible kind of game. However yes, I concede the points you raise are ones that have empirical substance. I am also partly going on what I have seen in my short time in fandom. So yes, I am making a generalization and there may be many instances in which the theory does not apply. I am simply saying that there are possibly quite a few in which this theory would.
With regards to radical feminism, I am referring to what we might call the postmodern-feminist type, which looks for politics of meaning in basically everything. I admit, I am partly simplifying, but please remember that in the context of fandom I don't think a breakdown of radical feminism into its distinct subtypes is necessary. Additionally, let me state that in terms of feminism, I support gender equality feminism and individualist feminism.
Also, I never said that physical prowess is IN FACT the essential characteristic of men. I said that traditional masculinity claims this to be true. Indeed, I do not in fact believe that physical prowess is the essential characteristic of men. However, if I were to give a full deconstruction of traditional masculinity, I'd need to go into the problem of universals and a whole lot of philosophy topics which aren't necessary to support my thesis.
As for the comment about "women can be just as rational as men," I am not intending any sexist implications. I am suggesting that the idea that men and women have different hardwired ways of thinking is incorrect. This idea is often used by some radical feminists, who argue that logic and reason are male and that women use emotions for cognition. Carol Gilligan, for one, suggested men and women have different ways of thinking about morality. I am simply saying that reason and the intellect are NOT owned by men! I believe reason and intellect are human, not masculine, faculties. So yes, to be honest, I think you are getting huffy over nothing (or making a false assumption about what I think).
About feminism freeing women from gender roles, please note that I qualified the statement with "for the most part (at least in the West)." I am aware women still face many socially-believed gender role expectations, and these expectations are, in my opinion, ridiculous. I am fully aware the job has not been completed. I am simply pointing to the fact that the situation for men with regards to gender roles is often worse, since people don't question them as much as they question gender roles for women.
As for the comment about MGS Fanpersons, I agree that yes, I am making a broad generalization. But from my exposure to the fandom I think at least some cases fit my theory. Im not assuming 100% and I never insisted my theory was the only one.
Either way thankyou for your comments. You raised important issues and I appreciate the discussion.
Reply
...What? How does just randomly hearing about a game ON THE STREET (I MEAN THIS LITERALLY, TOO) have to do with what crowd I spend time with?
I am making the judgement that MGS is a hardcore game because its not exactly an accessible kind of game.
Again, what? I am totally not a hardcore gamer. I suck, in fact. But I have been able to successfully complete 2,3,&4. Really, the game isn't hard (except in 2 ajsdfoajsofuckyousemtex).
I am referring to what we might call the postmodern-feminist type, which looks for politics of meaning in basically everything.
...Maybe there's different types of postmodern feminism because the one I know of seeks to transcend the notion of "female" and "woman" since those are male-defined constructs.
As for the comment about "women can be just as rational as men," I am not intending any sexist implications.
Just because you didn't intend it doesn't invalidate others' offense to it. Please, keep in mind your audience.
I am simply pointing to the fact that the situation for men with regards to gender roles is often worse, since people don't question them as much as they question gender roles for women.
I agree with you about gender roles but what about gender bias in general?
Reply
As for hardcore, "hardcore game" and "high difficulty" are different things. BioShock is a hardcore game but on it's easy difficulty level it is easy to play. I mean accessibility in terms of gameplay. Complex gameplay = hardcore, simple gameplay = casual. MGS is complex.
If you are talking about the kind of feminism that seeks to reach concepts of gender that are NOT influenced by political concerns (i.e. a concept of female that isn't engineered to make women easy to dominate), then I have no problem with that. That's the "Soft Foucauldian" type of feminism. My problem is with the "Hard Foucauldian" type, which says ALL concepts of gender are INEVITABLY political in nature. It's debatable whether Foucault actually believed anything like this, but that is beside the point. I will concede, soft Foucauldian interpretations are ones I come across more commonly than hard ones.
As for the offense, if you felt any, I apologize. Will keep the audience in mind in the future.
I do not know what you mean by gender bias. I assume you mean the popular sentiment that "if a man says it, it is not tainted by gender considerations, if a woman says it, it is tainted by gender considerations" (implying that man is the neutral 'human norm' and woman is a sex-specific deviation from that norm), I agree with you that this sentiment is ridiculous. A message should be judged by its content, not by the messenger.
Reply
Leave a comment