Is Bats A Sexist Character?

With all of that said, it is incredible how much some commenters were able to deduce about my personality and judgement from a comment of four lines. Seems to quite clearly attack the person and not the argument, but let's put all of that behind us and discuss as adults from now on.

As more than one above say they don't follow my logic, allow me to expand.

Imagine for a moment that you do not know all the things you do from this forum, and look at the Kickstarter with fresh eyes, the eyes of a potential backer who has not seen the forums at all. After all, message board activity is largely considered a high degree of involvement and most players of a typical game never delve into the game's message board. Now, this is not a typical game, but I think we can still safely assume more people find the Kickstarter before the forums than the other way around.

Got your fresh eyes on? Good. Navigate to the update in question, and you're greeted by a severely dangerous dude. (Love the art btw. Who drew it?) Others follow, each one more badass than Batman. Then, on the bottom, you find a girl. (At least she's wearing practical clothing, which is already better than many current games.) You get to know two things: 1) She's the new girl (rising rapidly in the ranks - a common way to add new characters to a plot. Did they realize late that they were lacking completely on the female side?) 2) Her mental condition is described in surprising detail (down to subtype number, that's very specific for a short blurb. Sounds like that's her defining trait). Sounds like the writer/s went over the synopsis and found they needed a female and also someone who could do weird or quirky things for easy comedy points in between the more serious, heavy storyline. With 2) in mind, the character's name could even be derived from the phrase "batshit crazy", hardly a respectful way to talk about different minds. Remember fresh eyes -you have no information about the application process to be an agent, and probably assume the characters were written as a group by one or a small crew of writers, with some degree of inspiration from the user base.

I was happy to realize that the impression conveyed by the KS page is not true. However, most people who visit the KS might not go to the forums and learn that. So I guess a more fitting (but lengthy and boring) headline for this topic would be "Is Bats portrayed on the KS page in a way that can easily be seen as sexist?" to which I would have to answer yes.

(As a long time TSW player, I realize that the TCO abbreviation should have been a giveaway regarding the direct relation between characters and players. Hello there TaCO!)

 

There are a few things I'd like to highlight in response - and I'll keep in mind to only base my arguments on the facts presented on the Kickstarter.

Despite the fact that I'm well aware some folks skip through text to try and find the important bits, the fact that the characters are based on actual people, isn't information solely available - or even more readily available - on the forums.

The update states in its introduction, before any of the characters are introduced:
"All the characters and events from the comic book are actually based on the community playing The Black Watchmen! Since we already have a great community, we’ve decided to craft the first characters from some of our players."
As well as near the end, just below Bats' bio-blurp:
"And this is just the beginning, it could be you next time!"

In addition to that, looking at the description of the other characters, Bats also isn't the newest Agent on the block, so to speak:
"With no physical proof, Santiak decides to search for others who share these memories [...] the actual Black Watchmen."
And by extension, it is also inferred - granted - that Vismal is as new to the group as Santiak: "Vismal has a short cameo in issue #1 as the friend of Santiak. They both argue about what the fragmented memories of The Black Watchmen means"

In response to the highlighting of Bats psychological situation, the same could be said about Tyryt, I feel.
His bio-blurp states he has "twisted values", "serious anger issues", and an "addiction to size when it's time to talk about weaponry". Traits that can be viewed in just as derogatory a light as having a psychological disorder might denote - unfortunately. (Blasted sociocultural misconceptions.) Likewise, his "addiction to size" could also be taken to allude towards future comical scenarios.

As for her being the character introduced last, while I agree it may cause the reader to get a sense of bias, it would also necessitate the reader to bias the importance of each character based on when they were listed.
Once more, however, the character bio's diffuse this notion: Vismal & Santiak are the first characters introduced in the comic, but 2nd and 3rd introduced on the KS page. TCO is the 4th introduced on the KS page, but he is introduced as a character of considerable importance to the Black Watchmen. Tyryt is introduced as the first character on the KS page, but doesn't say anything at all in the comic preview.
In fact, if people take a look at the comic, this notion is even diffused further, with Bats taking the seat next to person who appears to be in charge, with TCO on the other side, and Tyryt not uttering a word in the slightest.

In summary, I have trouble seeing - even when doing my utmost to discard what I know - how Bats is presentend in any worse - or better - of a light than other characters on the Kickstarter page. She is neither the newest, the only one with psychological issues, nor any more prone to have comical situations assumed by her bio-blurp alone. Conversely, she is presented as the smartest and most succesful Agent of the lot - even moreso if people take a glance at the comic linked in the update.

Considering the above, yes, I can see how people might get the impression that you describe, but I do feel that the information necessary to avoid giving people that impression, is already present - and highlighted sufficiently.

 

Yeah, Santiak said it.
I took to your suggestion Akita, and rather than being disappointed by a regular damsel in distress/overly sexualized/spectrum-impaired/or any other sexist bias; I am instead greeted by a really cool character, all decked out, with a fleshed out personality and from which I want to know more. I just can't see the problem.
If someone has an issue with just the female character(s), then you should equally have an issue with the male characters looking so alpha and tough. Big guns, muscular, scars. That too is pretty sexist if we push the envelope. You could also say; "are they all American? Where's the diversity?". You could say they all speak English, and that's not my native tongue, and I wish people would stop pushing English. Just as you could also say much more, in varying degrees of seriousness or lightheartedness (If be trolling/funny/etc). Just like composed commentary on literature; you can find a theme anywhere by delving deep enough.
Really however, I rather encourage the creativity, and if I want to see something cool, I would submit my idea. If I have a problem with an aspect of the project I am backing, I too would voice my opinion but I would try and provide constructive pointers for henceforth characters making appearances. I say we build something, us, together. The whole community. We build it, we give it a chance to shine first.
Treating things with only a hammer, everything starts looking like nails eventually. We got a whole toolbox here, and materials aplenty in the shed. If we run out, we'll run to the hardware store and grab some more stuff and do the thing.
We're doing the thing.
Whatever, it's late and I'm rambling. Go to bed Vismal.

 

Wait, we get to make characters now?

Code Name: Ruke (Real identity is top secret to protect his family - a static mask is always worn to further conceal himself)

A family man in his off time, a megalomaniac full of ambition and dreams of grandeur at all other times. Ruke is a skilled debater, a student of ancient torture techniques, and likes to take charge of a situation - regardless of whether that is for help or harm. Morally ambiguous, the task at hand is the most important, and all sacrifices are worthwhile to help him rise in status. Ruke is a narcissist by nature, but treats his cadre like family. In this respect, if your sites fall on one of "his men" (he naturally assumes leadership, even if not directly bestowed on him), only luck will allow you to see another day.

Edit: Is it really just a character?

 

So, I know this isn't the right place to post character stuff like this. I did it because I felt there was some tension, and I was trying to relieve it (doesn't mean that the character is inaccurate). I wanted to do that before I tossed my two pence into the ante.

First off I like how when we felt one of our own was threatened we came together against the perceived attacker. Having each others backs can be critical and rewarding. This is a good thing, when it's not taken too far.

However, many of us stated our points, and then the opposing point was stated. Again, this is a good thing, when done responsibly. However, reading through the responses made ME feel slightly uncomfortable for Akita, especially after she explained herself. My perception of responses after she explained herself was "Look, you just don't get it. You're wrong.". Knowing almost everyone here, I know that wasn't necessarily the intention, but putting myself in her shoes I think that's how I would have felt. And the thing is, she wasn't necessarily wrong. Everyone perceives things in a different way. Maybe she missed some critical information that would have allowed her to interpret the character differently, but after things were explained to her, and she basically agreed with everything and understood why the character was the way it was, it seemed as though people still wanted to pick at and attack her. Again, that's my perception of the situation and not necessarily right, but I'm sure you can see where I'm coming from. Personally, I think that a much better way to handle the situation might have been a "I see where you're coming from. I don't necessarily agree, but I understand your concern." after Akitas first, or even second comment. In this way, we won't come off as unnecessarily hostile to those we're supposed to be working and playing with.

I also propose that in the future, when it comes to important and controversial social issues that might adversely affect the game - sexism, racism, other-isms, etc... we allow the mods exclusively (and depending on the severity of the miscommunication the Staff exclusively) to handle the situation along with any particular character who might be involved (such as Bats, in this case). In this way, we can confront the problem as directly as possible, without coming across as a exclusive community, and without white-knighting.

Again, solidarity as a community is an excellent attribute, but let's not try to seem like a exclusive or haughty society in the process. I talk to many of you on a regular basis in IRC, and know that this isn't the prevalent attitude at all. We just need to make sure that when situations like this arise elsewhere we handle it responsibly, efficiently, and kindly. This is one of the most interesting and intelligent groups of people I've had the pleasure of coming across. I'm sure others would and do agree. Let's just make sure we give them a chance to do so.

TLR don't attack other agents!

 

And finally... What's the chances of my character getting into the comic , cause I'll be honest. I'm totally jealous!

 

Bats is awesome. Not sexist as far as the small preview is concerned at least. If she had been wearing high heel boots, tight outfit and abnormally large breasts that would have been another story but then again... Have you ever gone out in Glasgow?

 

I appreciate - and sincerely apologize - for the fact that I came off as antagonistic.
For what it's worth, that wasn't my intention.

My intention was to highlight that I personally could not see the issue, even when taking Akita's suggestion of trying to ignore what I know.
While the inference then becomes "you're wrong" - as it invariably does in any discussion of opposing views - that was not the crux of the message I was trying to convey.

My response to Akitas 2nd post was not an attempt at cementing any notion of "You're wrong!". Instead - rather than accept that, if viewed without prior knowledge, the issue would be there - it was an attempt at taking up Akitas suggestion, and, after having viewed the Kickstarter while disregarding what I knew, report back what I personally found (i.e. not an objective fact.) The fact that my viewpoint did not change was not an attack on Akita nor Akitas opinion.

As I mentioned near the end of my previous post:
I can fully appreciate why someone might get that impression of Bats character, but (and this is not a 'but' leading up to "you're wrong!") I - personally - have trouble seeing the issue regardless of whether or not I abandon what I know. That doesn't mean I intended to admonish neither the feelings nor the opinions of those who do see the issue.

Whether or not there is an issue is a moot discussion, although it does help each of us understand the other, for which reason I, as already mentioned, can appreciate that the issue may very well be present for others, despite it not being present for me. It is, as any opinion, a matter of subjective view, and as such, no single view is neither correct nor incorrect.

I admit I should have made it clear at the end of my post, that I was curious as to what changes people might propose to diffuse the issue, instead of merely stating that I could appreciate the issue despite not agreeing with it, hoping that the natural next step of the discussion - after having accepted the presence of an issue, although not agreeing with it personally - would be to proffer suggestions to diffuse the issue.

Which is where I'll leave the discussion for now; Despite we disagree on the extent of the issue, what might you (plural, not singular) propose we do to avoid this being an issue anymore?

And again, I am truly sorry - and saddened - that what I intended to be a sincere response, came out as antagonistic.

 

Again, as Santiak said, anything that involves opposing views involves opposition. On my initial post, I felt an extreme effort of many posters to try and remain as neutral and civil in their replies to this post, sort of giving their views/opinion on the subject as tame as possible, to prevent escalation of the problem. I thought it was going good really. Sort of trying not to attack the other involved parties is the civil way of opinion-dropping on civilized forums.
Then I felt that the discussion was heading in a more emotional involvement, even if large sentences and complex words were involved. The opposition was leading to friction.
I felt I needed to see the issue again, and perhaps I may have had a different view on the subject. On my 2nd post, I was having a hard time trying to put into words my difficulty in posting anything that would be neutral while giving my opinion on the subject, as it is a subject that I am invested morally. I was tired and re-wrote it multiple times, even edited it once posted by adding some tidbits at the end to try and promote togetherness in a lighter tone. I still see it as having a tone of desperation at the end, indication that I was trying to bridge the "front" together, showing that even should the opinions differed, that we shouldn't forget the whole point of this discussion, and the reason we were having it, and letting it happen.
It's important. Dismissing it would be a gross error, and a sign of idiocy in the face of pursuit of understanding. Morally and ethically, we needed to explore these facets.
We make little decisions every day, and our values/experience/society's views influence those decisions and actions, whether we want them or not; it's how we function. If we do something, that we do not question or have doubts, generally it means that it is an accepted facet of society; but what if someone else brings up possible opposition. We *have* to consider it, for fear that we would have sunk into a torpor of assumption through routine environmental apathy. It's philosophical in nature, and it's not wrong to over analyze a situation, keeping strongly in mind that you aren't destroying the initial thought of the opposition by analyzing it; but rather trying to understand it.
The community felt strongly on the subject itself, and the onslaught of posts may have put the less popular stance in a further defensive position which may have elicited feelings of being threatened, as you felt reading through it, and as probably many felt reading this thread itself. Without shunning the feelings of those involved, we do have to take into account that all parties in this are sentient beings, capable of independent thoughts, and of reflection on their previous post if they were the products of natural reflexive defensive stance. It's normal as sentient beings, not based on logical argumentative fallacy, but also on feelings.
I'm sure we all noticed why you posted what you posted after me Ruke, and noticed that you did know full well why you were doing it. It goes back to the community, much like an organism, was trying to mend the rift that was slowly forming as it would be anathema to it's well being. Desperation isn't abnormal a feeling either, whether alone or in a group of same-minded individuals.
This whole post is long, and isn't as neutral as I could have put it, as I wanted all to know that not only if the issue sensitive, and the opinions will impede into the sensitive area of the subject; but that if they do impede into it, that they should be receive in the same manner that they are being given. All parties appear fully aware of this, and I know we can reach agreement or acknowledgement of each other's views through other's eyes. Again, I do stress that what we do has to be for building, and not for creating rifts within the community. I'm just not the poet needed to orate my way through everyone's hearts, and I'm pretty sure it also doesn't apply to the other regular "Joes and Janes" of society. We will just have to make the extra effort if we want to persevere through other tense social concepts in the future.

There is no TL; DR.

 

Ok, so here are a few suggestions :

concerning 1 : It may not be possible to have her background changed much or the way she is starting at the bottom of the ranks, but it does look promising that she will be going up the ranks quite quickly. Moving forward, maybe the writers can try and be a bit more aware of these types of insertions and make them more meaningful/less generic ?

concerning 2 : Maybe the mental state can be downplayed in the bio a bit as we will see those facets in the comic, or maybe just a bit more roundly focused on other things with the mental state. I do see that "Bats" could be taken as insulting, so maybe a single line stating where the name comes from (and not from bat shit crazy) would completely clear this.

Concerning the fact that she is last: does it matter if she is moved around in the order of characters? would this help at all?

Concerning the lack of more female characters: I think Anashel has now acknowledged this fact and going forward, might try to rectify this in the comic, but I am only speaking myself, and not for him.

 

If she is last, she is last of the first. Speaking as one who won't make the comic book, I do not see a problem, I will still be well down the pecking order long after Bats has climbed to the top spot
Are we not being sexist ourselves by asking the very question asked?
No replies necessary, just thought this was a nice place to make myself known!

 

Thank you so much Ruke, you have no idea how much I appreciate your post (EDIT: and you pretty much captured how I felt. I was so close to slam a hearty Good Riddance in your faces and be on my merry way. Luckily I didn't act on the impulse).

All my <3 to you, and to Vismal and Santiak who have been incredibly thorough and thoughtful. I don't feel like a paria anymore.

Having cooled off from the initial shock, I can now appreciate the reactions to my observations (which I still find to be valid btw). Judging from the defensive wording, I poked a sensitive spot back there. It's also known to cause a bit of cognitive dissonance when a "them" turns out to be an "us"

Looking forward to get to know a broad range of different agents in the future.

 

Idk what you're talking about... no protection going on here...

 

Well, I for one am very much looking forward to Bats as I said previously. And there are probably going to be a whole lot more amazing male and female characters in different issues. Also the 4 pages was a real tease. I need moar.