A recent article by Heather Chaplin of National Public Radio discussed a new video game for PC and Mac called The Path. In it, the author calls the game "nothing so much as a rumination on the vulnerabilities of girlhood" with co-designer Auria Harvey chiming in, "...this [game] is about the various stages of life a girl has to go through in order to become a woman" and "the vulnerabilities of girls -- it's something that people don't deal with much in this particular format,"
Right. So, what is it, exactly, that is so goddamned vulnerable?
Yes, females of our species are not as strong, pound for pound, as males, but other than that, seriously, what is the difference?
Let me illustrate using two powerful animals as examples: The American Black Bear and the Cougar. The bear is twice as heavy and almost three times as strong, and despite its bulky appearance, surprisingly fast and agile. But when confronted, cougars (even females!) have been known to severely injure and even kill black bears to protect themselves, their territory, their kills, or their cubs. Sometimes they even start the fight. Just because cougars are not as strong as bears does not mean they pose no threat to bears.
The difference in size and strength is far less notable between human men and women. This in mind, you would think cautionary tales insisting "you're just a FEMALE child, don't talk to strangers; they might RAPE you!" really could do without the gender specificity thrown in there. Little boys are every bit as vulnerable to peer pressure, drugs, "stranger-danger" and physical abuse by authority figures as little girls are. Statistics notwithstanding; I'm talking biological differences, here. There is almost nothing so physically or mentally different between young/tweeny girls and boys that makes one more able to protect themselves (or make more reasonable decisions) than the other side.
Every game, book, movie, or song I've ever come across that claims to be about "what it means" to grow up female and "what it takes" to "become a woman" strikes me as just another artistic/commercial reflection of a mentality whose sole purpose is to reinforce the "second-rate human" status quo: you're a girl, so there are special dangers for you; males are out to molest you, better watch out; but better watch those pounds, or no one will want anything to do with you when you're actually looking for a mate. Conversely, vilifying men is just as damaging; kids so often grow up to be what they're told they are.
That said, the game itself is utterly beside the supposed point. Taking note of the gameplay, the screenshots, the dialogue, if you can call it that...the whole time, I'm thinking, "I'm supposed to relate to this? What are they talking about? I have nothing in common with this girl. This isn't about me, this is about someone else."
There's no commentary on femininity, here. It's a game inspired by someone's bad dream of a life.
Which is fine; I guess it's not the game itself I have so much of a problem with. That it's being treated here as some kind of window into A Day In the Life of the female gender is what raises my hackles. It feels insulting because what they're saying is that playing this game will somehow make someone understand me better. I beg your fucking pardon.
Now, before anyone starts in with "but it does apply to a lot of women! You're just an exception." --No. No, I am not. Estrogen-saturated though my body may be, my brain is basically the same as everyone else's. The conviction that a nerdy, video game-loving, technologically oriented, good looking woman, who likes jet fighters, computers, fart jokes and big explosions, who is not and never has been a victim of violence, who can and has successfully defended herself from larger aggressors--that someone like that is an exception, or unusual, or necessarily lesbian, is a prime example of the kind of stupidity I'm talking about.
There is no reason for girls or women who aren't
vulnerable, technologically ignorant, or passive to be seen as a
deviation from the human norm. "The Vulnerabilities of Girls"--It's
attitudes like that, and the sentiments expressed by these game
developers and the journalist who quotes them that turn my stomach.
Their words reflect with stunning clarity the prejudices and
harebrained assumptions we as a society take for granted, and in doing
so, inadvertently support and perpetuate the very sexism most of us
openly revile. Because we're so unaware of it, we will probably pass it
on to our spawn.
On that front, while I'm all for teaching
kids in general to make decisions based on reason rather than
authority, and the very implication that boys and men are dangerous to
girls by default unnecessarily demonizes the male gender while
simultaneously assigning it an automatic position of authority it
wouldn't otherwise have, and in any case, doesn't deserve (neither
gender does).
It also puts women into the passive role from an
early age, and that puts a bad slant on their chances of ever breaking
free of such a stigma when they're older; when you treat someone like a
victim before they've even been victimized, you're not helping them
succeed, you're setting them up to, at best, adhere to a sub-par
standard, and at worst, see themselves as too weak by definition to
control their own lives. I've been e-lynched for saying this before,
but I seriously would not be surprised if it turned out that many rapes
came about in part because the girl or woman felt powerless to even attempt to defend herself.
This isn't to say it's her fault; quite the opposite. We're the ones
who gave her that idea in the first place and wouldn't let her believe
anything else.
We tell women not to fight back. How screwed up is that?
The advice we give women, supposedly in an effort to save lives, I
think often does more to hurt them than help. I say no way: If some guy
grabs me and puts a knife to my throat and holds me down and tries to
rape me, I am not sitting still and letting him do it
because "it's better to live." I'm spitting in his face. I'm twisting
and struggling, I'm screaming, and if I get the opportunity, I'm
slamming my head into his fucking teeth. If he cuts my throat, well,
that's that, I guess, but that is not my fault, it's his
fault, and to blame me for doing something to "give him reason" to hurt
me is as much bullshittery as saying women who wear tight skirts are
"asking for it." Just as you can be sexy without wanting to be raped,
you can defend yourself without wanting to die. There is no excuse for
teaching anyone, children of any sex, to be passive and compliant when
they are being abused by someone, even someone bigger and stronger.
Aggression and heroism in the face of danger is not in any way
unfeminine, or a virtue unique to adults.
Unfortunately, we do
it all the time. We teach people from an early age who is supposed to
be strong and who is supposed to be weak; we teach men chivalry instead
of respect, and in doing so give them the mistaken impression that
women are easy victims; we tell women that they're naturally
victimizable because they don't have quite as much muscle by default
(and other equally stupid reasons) and therefore they should watch what
they say and do and try not to want "things you can't have." We live in
passive fear of the other half while men are less likely to feel
intimidated by the idea of engaging a woman in physical conflict
because they've been told all their lives we can't fight them. So men do victimize women, and women do
validate the stereotype that's been put to them for ages. The only
difference is, no one's really forcing it on them anymore; the
stereotypes get by just by being proposed.
So, I'll call these game designers on their claims: if the stereotypes are wrong, what's right? What does it "mean" to be a girl?
Well, I it's a lot like being a boy. But if you insist, here are some differences you can reasonably expect (you can skip this part if you think you know it):
--
It's true that women are not as physically strong. Moving things around is probably be a little harder. You might feel a little more "swing" in your emotions, and you might find yourself having to wrestle with them a little more sometimes (and then again, you might not!). Peeing sitting down will be a fact of life, but it's not the inconvenience it's made out to be. Periods are kind of gross and come with with some pain and fatigue, but unless there's something wrong, it's not too serious and you can probably control it with pills to some extent. There are boobs. You can think of them as an aesthetic touch or a minor annoyance, or both. Changes in temperature are easier to sense, and pain tolerance may be higher or it may be lower. Life expectancy is higher. Libido is generally lower, the the drive to find a mate is just as powerful. Women keep their hair for longer, maybe even a lifetime but you won't see any facial hair. If you're a woman, you'll probably have to change your underwear every day, but not because of fun dreams, just daily excretions. No one will ever kick you in the balls, but don't get too cocky (haha); a well-placed kick still hurts like hell, it's just not quite as damaging and it's harder to do. Your voice will be higher. Your sensitivity to color might be stronger.
--
Now tell me seriously--aside from one or two tidbits, is there anything there that isn't immediately obvious? I'm not telling any secrets, here.
You'd still like your sports, your music, your favorite color. Your interests would not suddenly change, and you're not going to get any dumber. Here is the part that maybe you didn't know: Pretty much everything that makes you who you are would stay the same.
Confused? Think I left out some key items? I deliberately left out
"you shave your legs, not your face" and "your clothes selections will
be different" and "people won't take you as seriously when you're mad"
and "you'll like the color pink better and get the urge to shop more"
in there anywhere because those things have nothing to do with "what it
means" to be female. Heresy, I know! It's true, though. Really. And no
one should ever state otherwise. Shaving, attire, favorite colors and
how people treat you are not traits, they're personal choices, situations, and feelings.
Unfortunately, people assign those choices, feelings and situations a
gender; there are "man" things and there are "woman" things. These
assignments create artificial gender roles that are limiting to both
sides, but they're very hard to get out of because, since they're
self-applied, we don't even realize we're subjecting ourselves to them,
and in the end we wind up selling each other short.
It's so much circular crap I just want to stick a wrench in it somehow. I bet almost every person who reads this can think of something they feel is strictly girl- or boy-territory. Well, stop it. Unless it involves a tampon or a condom, I don't buy it.
The differences between genders are marginal from every meaningful
standpoint except biological. What people need to understand is that
regardless of what body you're in, we all share the same human experience. There's no 'victor' side, no 'victim' side, no vulnerable girls and no villainous men
. We're all victims and victors, vulnerable and villainous in our
lifetimes. The world is a dangerous place no matter who you are, but
you can do some damage, or some good, yourself.
Screw this
fallacy of feminine fragility and unchallengable masculinity: If women
were less afraid to fight and to think, they'd be harder to victimize,
and if men were better educated, they'd respect the injury women could
potentially inflict on them in spite of lesser muscle mass, so even the
jerks among them would think twice about picking fights. We'd stop
making up bullshit cautionary tales about how "vulnerable" females are
to the Big Bad Wolf while sweeping under the rug the fact that Very Bad
Things happen to guys, too (which is a completely different rant I will
save for a later time, but it's also a subject that pisses me right
off).
Of course, we want to keep our daughters and sons safe,
but if we're going to make up stories that are supposed to show us how
to keep them out of danger, let's not start with chivalry and chastity.
Let's start by teaching them how to think critically and be proactive
so they can empower themselves with know-how and wisdom, instead of
just telling them what they should and should not do.
We all have our Big Bad Wolves and our scary forests and our paths to walk, but there is no rule that states you must walk that path unarmed.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Vulnerabilities of Girls.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15153
Biologically, men could be considered more vulnerable. There are various things they're more prone to starting from when premature girl babies are more likely to survive than premature boy babies.
To respond to a couple of points:
It's totally up to you whether or not you should fight back during sexual assault. You may think injury is preferable to completed rape (lots of women do). Others would not. You really can't know what you would do until you are there. I know that it wasn't your intention, but that section of your post had a bit of a judgmental vibe to me. I agree that we should help women know how to fight back, but I completely disagree that every woman SHOULD fight back despite what her instinct is telling her to do in the situation.
Also, I like that you focus on women and the things women can do in their lives to make them whole people. However, when it comes to vulnerability, it's not always all ABOUT the woman, nor should it be. I know that you said we should educate men that women can do them harm, but I think their experiential knowledge will be the MOST considered when the opportunity to offend presents itself. When we start focusing on all of the things that women can and should be doing to prevent being vulnerable, we start walking a dangerous path, in my opinion.
I just don't like the supposition that if we made every woman into a fighter that our society would be a better place. I think that women should have the freedom to be weak and vulnerable and not be victimized for it.
I haven't seen the game, but I've heard of it. I understand why it's upsetting to you, but it is intriguing to me. As much as I wish that women weren't especially vulnerable when it comes to certain things in our society, I know it's not always true.
You're utterly missing the point. I'm not at all insisting that every woman, or every person, should be a fighter. I simply don't think that a "fighter" woman should be considered abnormal, and don't think we should ever be told we are incapable of fighting.
Never ONCE did I say that a woman, or anyone, should be pushed to behave any particular way, be it aggressively or otherwise. The entire point of the post was that we should not be told what we are and are not capable of, what we should or should not do. Read the last few paragraphs: I even say as much.
I also state that the game itself is not what bothers me, simply the sentiments expressed by its creators.
Either you fail at reading comprehension, or I fail at communicating accurately. Either way, you misinterpreted the very core of what I was saying.
I apologize for seeming like I completely missed the point of your post. I really didn't and do, in fact, agree with a lot of what you had to say.
There was just something in the tone, but not actual words, in some parts that rubbed me the wrong way. I realize that it wasn't your intention. It's partly because I work in research in populations that have experienced sexual assault and seeing you write, 'If some guy grabs me and puts a knife to my throat and holds me down and tries to rape me, I am not sitting still and letting him do it because "it's better to live." I'm spitting in his face. I'm twisting and struggling, I'm screaming, and if I get the opportunity, I'm slamming my head into his fucking teeth. If he cuts my throat, well, that's that, I guess...' made me cringe. It may be what you THINK you would do, but I've seen more than one woman who thought she'd do something similar, but then froze up and has blamed herself or has been blamed by friends, family, police, etc ever since.
Again, I apologize for not telling you that I agreed with your overall premise of not having EXPECTATIONS for the way in which females are brought up in our society. I should have specifically stated what I didn't agree with.
Thank you. I also apologize if my response was rough; to be perfectly honest, I was in a bad mood when I responded to your comment and thinking about it now, I should not have worded it the way I did.
My certainty about "what I would do if..." is based on personal experience. I absolutely do not blame people for freezing up under those circumstances. I simply get annoyed when someone insists that it's somehow a bad idea to fight if that's what you're inclined to do, or that, if a woman fights back, that justifies any violence her attacker may use on her. I am a strong proponent of self-awareness and self-defense training; the insinuation that these things are useless or even bad for women is absolutely absurd to me. However, I don't for a moment blame any women, or any person, for that matter, for not fighting an attacker. I didn't mean to sound as if I did.
Thank you for your insight. Again, I'm sorry if I came off as condescending.
/bigcheer!
I am so glad you posted this article.
You've made some really good points. I especially liked the paragraph about how very few characteristics are inherently female or male. If more people realized this, maybe we wouldn't have quite as many problems with tired stereotypes of each sex.