I tend to challenge aspects of discussion and I admit that it can be risky but in my experience, it tends to draw out good discussion from people who want to discuss as opposed to defend views.
Va'al wrote:Yes and no.
I can see Dead Metal and your point about more variety once we have a bigger cast to play with. But I also disagree with it.
I believe I could sum up my point by saying that if we have to ascribe gender to Transformers characters, why not just assign it randomly? Megatron could be female, for all we know.
(The IDW dealing with gendering and Arcee, especially the Spotlight, is not a good way to discuss the issue, in case anyone feels like bringing it in to the conversation.)
I agree with the idea but the reality is that most fandoms, ours included, as Garth Algar has put it, "Fear change.".
Whether it's re-assigning gender traits, not necessarily strictly gender, to established characters like Megatron, or introducing entirely new characters, it gets messy.
To me, a, if not the, major hick up in discussing and figuring out a matter like gender as a factor in character designs of a brand like Transformers is that it has a 30 year legacy, based in a design direction that includes a deliberate effort in marketing products towards young males.
The standard of male visually identifiable characters was established from the beginning and the natural opposite would be female visually identifiable characters.
It would make more sense for the Transformers to be established with an art direction using androgynous character design, making more sense with the premise of alien/non-human robotic/bio-mechanical organisms. However, again, the brand was developed with the idea of making kids toys that are marketed to boys. This is what brings the baggage of gender roles and values.
I agree that the IDW Arcee ordeal is best left out of the conversation.
Va'al wrote:And again, gender is not reproduction-bound. Transformers don't copulate in the human sense, fine, that doesn't mean they can't indentify with the gender spectrum.
My issue is with the associated gender qualities as you described above....
It's a question of normative identification, if anything, and just an easy wait out of a discussion about the values we confer to gender representation.
Why is normative identification for some things a matter of potential negativity? The reason for conformed views is that there is an overwhelming consensus of things like "These are the visual traits that most women/men possess.".
Not every male or female has to look a certain way or adopt certain roles/behaviors due to gender inferred logic. However, there is precedence for such norms in every major modern culture.
The basic underlying point I've seen by some in the discussion is "Why do we have to conform to female visual traits at all?". I think that an answer is that we don't have to but for sake of clarity in intent of design, ie. Windblade is a fembot, certain visual design elements are employed to make that intent clear upon simple visual inspection.
I do appreciate the fact that when we have clearly feminine character design, some people will view them in a traditional/potentially sexist paradigm(ie. posing them like girly girls, sexually provocative, or with passive-aggressive homophobic inference in the case of Prime Starscream).
I think that's one example of how some people react but there are seemingly at least comparable numbers of people who have the opposite reaction of seeing such things as empowering for the fact that we have more female representation in a male dominated brand. We also have a large number of people, likely the majority, who are indifferent to gender considerations and either think the character/toy design is cool or meh.
I think the importance of how a character/toy design influences, reinforces, or perpetuates gender stereotypes is given more weight than necessary. It is indeed an important factor to consider and discuss but in this particular case, people have reacted to the Windblade character design as if it exhibits negative or exaggerated feminine visual traits.
To me, issues with gender role assignment or identification are symptoms rather than the root of a problem. Getting rid of fembots or overtly feminine character designs doesn't address the underlying cause.
Va'al wrote:As for Hulk/Strika: I was agreeing with you, but you have now raised a point I want to respond to - The Hulk is still following conventional norms of male power representation. Strika is not.
I agree and that's where I had confusion where the Botcon Strika, as opposed to the Beast Machines original, was being represented by an overtly male design(Warpath).
Va'al wrote:But we seem to agree on the fact that Windblade is an inkling of a step forward for Hasbro, Transformers, fans and parts of society. Good.
Definitely. Even though some would not see having a clearly female robot character as a step away from the status quo, I see the addition of simply another female robot character as exactly that.
Hasbro has been criticized for employing a Boy's Toys and Girl's Toys divide in their products so for them to make a fembot as a mainline toy in what is a boy-centric toyline is not something I can disregard.
Va'al wrote:EDIT: A final point, not from me, but with which I entirely agree.Sprite wrote:I just don't see why some Transformers can't be "female" the way the others are "male". They are technically genderless after all and, Arcee aside, whatever passes for gender comes down to the "pronoun of choice" thing (which is pretty arbitrary). We've got like a zillion Nails who've drifted all over the galaxy for four million years - it's not unthinkable that some of them has adapted the feminine gender as the social norm, is it? And there doesn't need to be made a fuss about it. Face it, any focus on an explanation for gender otherwise is bound to be offensive in some way or other.
I agree totally as well.
Va'al wrote:Dead Metal wrote:For now, could we see the positive in this? Hasbro made a brand new character, a female character, and she's getting a toy. Hasbro has thankfully already gotten ridd of pink and oversexed designs and is moving in the right direction.
Yes, that was my point a while back too (though I also think that the oversexed part will inevitably happen once fans get the figure).
Again, I agree but a point of contention I have is that the behavior of individuals who partake in viewing or portraying objects such as toys in an oversexed way is the responsibility of the individual, even if the toy itself exhibits over sexualized traits. People have posed their male/masculine Transformers toys in sexualized ways as well. That's an issue of the social, cultural, and intellectual values of the individual.