Riona (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
rionaleonhart) wrote2010-08-03 04:10 pm
rionaleonhart) wrote2010-08-03 04:10 pm
Entry tags:
Yes, I've Genuinely Been Waiting For This Age To Make This Entry.
I turned twenty-two a few weeks ago, and so it seems an appropriate time to post about something that's been troubling me: the ages of female characters in the Final Fantasy series. And videogames in general, and media in general, really, but I'm using the Final Fantasy series in particular to illustrate this problem.
About a year ago,![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
rimon made an entry asking about the sorts of female characters people wanted to see in videogames. Considering this made me realise that, whilst I could easily name a few significant male videogame characters over thirty, thinking of female characters in the same age range was considerably more tricky.
Curious, I looked up all the humanoid main-party characters in the main-series games from Final Fantasy IV to Final Fantasy XII, disregarding characters such as Fran, who is more than fifty years old but looks much younger on account of not being human.
The ages of the male characters ranged from five to seventy.
The ages of the female characters ranged from five to twenty-two.
I love the Final Fantasy series, but this is ridiculous. Beatrix from IX is twenty-eight (and awesome!) and Edea from VIII must be over thirty, but both of these are temporary party members, playable only very briefly. Permanently playable male characters over the age of twenty-two, meanwhile, include Edward, Edge, Yang, Cid (IV), Tellah, Galuf, Locke, Edgar, Sabin, Setzer, Cyan, Strago, Vincent, Cid (VII), Barret, Amarant, Steiner, Wakka, Auron and Basch. That's at least one playable male character older than the oldest female characters in the entire series (Aeris and Lulu*) in every one of these games bar VIII.
And that bothers me. Why do the women always have to be young and pretty? I do love most of the ladies of Final Fantasy, and I don't think for a moment that they're there solely to be attractive; they're characters, with strengths and flaws and insecurities and roles in the plot. But they're limited in age and appearance, and there's no reason for them not to be as physically varied as the men.
I'm not saying that videogames have to stop having young, pretty women in their casts, but would it be too much trouble to include the occasional female character who deviates from that template? Really, now. I don't want to feel that I'm going to be past saving the world from a giant flying whale in a mere twelve months.
* I always thought Lulu was around thirty. I was astonished to realise she was only twenty-two. I mentally age both Lulu and the eighteen-year-old Quistis up eight years when I'm playing their games.
Lulu doesn't look twenty-two, so why make her twenty-two? There's no reason for her not to be thirty. Wakka doesn't look twenty-three, either, so he could have been aged up as well had their romance been a concern.
And, of course, in Final Fantasy X-2 Lulu is twenty-four and, ta-da, no longer a playable character. TWENTY-TWO IS THE ABSOLUTE CUTOFF FOR LADIES TO HAVE ADVENTURES. HERE, HAVE AN EIGHTEEN-YEAR-OLD INSTEAD. I do like Paine very much, but the way in which Lulu is sidelined does seem a bit odd.
About a year ago,
rimon made an entry asking about the sorts of female characters people wanted to see in videogames. Considering this made me realise that, whilst I could easily name a few significant male videogame characters over thirty, thinking of female characters in the same age range was considerably more tricky.Curious, I looked up all the humanoid main-party characters in the main-series games from Final Fantasy IV to Final Fantasy XII, disregarding characters such as Fran, who is more than fifty years old but looks much younger on account of not being human.
The ages of the male characters ranged from five to seventy.
The ages of the female characters ranged from five to twenty-two.
I love the Final Fantasy series, but this is ridiculous. Beatrix from IX is twenty-eight (and awesome!) and Edea from VIII must be over thirty, but both of these are temporary party members, playable only very briefly. Permanently playable male characters over the age of twenty-two, meanwhile, include Edward, Edge, Yang, Cid (IV), Tellah, Galuf, Locke, Edgar, Sabin, Setzer, Cyan, Strago, Vincent, Cid (VII), Barret, Amarant, Steiner, Wakka, Auron and Basch. That's at least one playable male character older than the oldest female characters in the entire series (Aeris and Lulu*) in every one of these games bar VIII.
And that bothers me. Why do the women always have to be young and pretty? I do love most of the ladies of Final Fantasy, and I don't think for a moment that they're there solely to be attractive; they're characters, with strengths and flaws and insecurities and roles in the plot. But they're limited in age and appearance, and there's no reason for them not to be as physically varied as the men.
I'm not saying that videogames have to stop having young, pretty women in their casts, but would it be too much trouble to include the occasional female character who deviates from that template? Really, now. I don't want to feel that I'm going to be past saving the world from a giant flying whale in a mere twelve months.
* I always thought Lulu was around thirty. I was astonished to realise she was only twenty-two. I mentally age both Lulu and the eighteen-year-old Quistis up eight years when I'm playing their games.
Lulu doesn't look twenty-two, so why make her twenty-two? There's no reason for her not to be thirty. Wakka doesn't look twenty-three, either, so he could have been aged up as well had their romance been a concern.
And, of course, in Final Fantasy X-2 Lulu is twenty-four and, ta-da, no longer a playable character. TWENTY-TWO IS THE ABSOLUTE CUTOFF FOR LADIES TO HAVE ADVENTURES. HERE, HAVE AN EIGHTEEN-YEAR-OLD INSTEAD. I do like Paine very much, but the way in which Lulu is sidelined does seem a bit odd.
no subject
There is a super interest thing in film theory which is the Male Gaze. Basically, most media assumes that the 'gaze' of the film (that is, what we see as an audience AND what we see as someone who empathises with the protagonist) is a) male and b) heterosexual. Thus much of what we see in the media - even if made by females or via female protagonists - is geared towards straight men. So, young, attractive, available women (there is also a whole bunch of awesome stuff in this theory about the technique of that gaze, how women and men are shot on camera, how they dress, present themselves, etc). Think of women's magazines. Think of how many women's magazines (geared towards straight women) feature photoshopped, conventionally attractive women in mildly-to-overtly alluring poses. It's a lot. A whole lot. Why? These are women we are meant to empathise with, but they are most often presented in a 'you want to sleep with me ;D' context.
ANYWAY IT'S INTERESTING. And. Really fucking sad. But basically the world is ruled by straight white middle-aged men and there's nothing much we can do about it the end? WOO.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2010-08-03 06:48 pm (UTC)(link)I mean, it exists, but a couple generations after women have started being part of the film industry, I think it'd better change. (There was recently some discussion I read about the female gaze and the Twilight movies, and while I have never seen the Twilight movies and I hear they're terribly sexist, I have to admit there is a lot of shameless male shirtlessness there.)
Please don't sound so defeated about it! It makes me sad.
That is all.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
So much sexism is so pervasive that we don't even realise it's there. Sigh. Perhaps things will change, though? There's been a vast amount of progress on the gender equality front within just a few decades, after all.