In June, after the release of the Portal 2 trailer at E3 I wrote about some concerns I had reading interviews with the developers of Portal 2. Now it has been released and I have finished the main story and co-op, gone through again for the trophies and to listen to the developer commentary, so I thought I should return and assess whether the worries I had were warranted. [Note: The following discussion contains spoilers]
1. Portal 2 and Gender
This version of portal is certainly more gendered than the first version was. But just because something is gendered, that does not necessarily make it sexist. Gender can be used in subversive ways as well as being used in sexist ways. Arguably, the first Portal game used gender in subversive ways (for an analysis see Joe McNeilly’s discussion here).
Portal 1 is not very explicitly gendered. When I first played I did not notice Chell’s gender much at all. Some elements of the environment were gendered (GLaDOS was clearly a female computer, if such a thing makes sense). McNeilly argues (pg. 4) that many of the elements of the environment are gendered (the turrets are ‘boys’ and the companion cube is male–from the GLaDOS line (about 3:30; the link is a spoiler for Portal 1): “A big party that all your friends were invited to. I invited your best friend the Companion Cube. Of course, HE couldn’t come because you murdered HIM,” which I took as the generic “he” but perhaps McNeilly is right).
In the first game you really did not get a sense of Chell’s gender unless you happened to catch a glimpse of yourself through one of the portals. That lead to some magical moments for many gamers, as Jenn Frank wrote about and I discussed in a previous post. It was really great to play a woman in a game without that making a huge difference to the story or the heroism of the protagonist. As Frank writes,
But here is the next surprise: your being a girl doesn’t mean anything. It means nothing. You play on, and nothing has changed, and the game is still the game, and you are still you. But something has substantially changed, and fundamentally changed, because now you know. You have seen yourself.
But the surprise at playing a woman was never really an option for Portal 2, once they made the decision to keep Chell as the main character (and thank goodness they ditched the jumpsuit revision they were considering at the time. This Chell is somewhat more sexed-up, but not overly so. I don’t find her to be any more sexed-up than Faith from Mirror’s Edge. Also, they seem to have kept the racial ambiguity that allows players to project their own race onto Chell. Chell is still modelled on Alesia Glidwell, a Japanese-Brazilian actor.). So now that the player knows they are a woman, there is a choice about how that will be treated.
Chell is definitely more gendered than she was the first time around. As a few people have already written, some of the jabs that GLaDOS levies at Chell involve calling Chell fat as a particularly gendered insult (see below). For example, loodmoney writes,
Secondly, it seems a poor way to write female characters. In Portal 1, the player might very well have completed the game without knowing the protagonist was a woman. Her sex was irrelevant to the circumstances, thus it was not worth commenting on. Chell is a stronger character as a result.
But here I get the impression that the writers got lazy: ‘Chell is a girl, right? And GLaDOS is also a girl, right? And they’re enemies? Well then, obviously the latter is going to say stuff about the former’s weight! I mean, that’s something that girls do, right?’
I agree with loodmoney that Chell is more gendered in this game. I also agree that ‘fat’ is a gendered insult in this particular instantiation. Why is it a gendered insult? Because Chell is not fat, and despite the obvious truth that (fat) men are sometimes called fat with the intent to insult them, and men can also be hurt by being called fat, it remains a gendered insult because non-fat men are not usually called ‘fat’ whereas non-fat women often are. Further, it is generally considered more important for women to maintain their appearance than it is for men, and men get greater leeway before the label ‘fat’ is applied to them. But this is the text, and there is (I think) a different subtext.
I disagree that this is lazy writing or that it fails characterization and feminism 101. The reason is because of the relationship to power that Valve has included in the game.
2. Portal 2 and Power
Portal 2 has a very interesting analysis of power, one that seems to me quite feminist. In the first game Chell is the protagonist and GLaDOS is the antagonist and that dynamic lasts for the entire time. In the second game, however, things are different. Those who begin as your companions might not end up there and those who began as your enemy might switch to your companion along the way. What mainly determines their antagonism is the relations of power between the other character and Chell.
One of the distinctions made by feminist philosophers and other critical theorists that I think is particularly useful is the distinction between racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism (etc.) as individual (or interpersonal) and as institutional. There has been lots of discussion of this point, one place to look is Ann Cudd and Leslie Jones’ paper “Sexism.” Cudd and Jones define sexism as:
“sexism is a systematic, pervasive, but often subtle, force that maintains the oppression of women, and that this is at work through institutional structures in interpersonal interactions and the attitudes that are expressed in them, and in the cognitive, linguistic, and emotional processes of individual minds… our very experience of the world” (105-6)
They say that sexism (and other ‘isms’) operates at at 3 levels: Interpersonal, Institutional and Unconscious:
- Interpersonal Sexism: involves interactions (actions, expressions, etc.) between persons not governed by explicit or implicit rules (Cudd and Jones 109)
I think that most who are unfamiliar with feminism think of sexism or racism (and other ‘isms’) along an interpersonal or individual level. The model they have in mind is of a person who holds, and would endorse, explicit statements that negatively characterize women, racial minorities (etc.) and who would advocate unequal treatment on this basis.
Perhaps there is one level where GLaDOS’ comments about Chell being fat might be interpreted as sexist on a superficial and individual level. But I think if we look at the subtext and at a deeper level the game might be making a broader point.
Interpersonal (or individual) sexism is not the only kind of sexism that interests many feminists. Instead, they also talk about Institutional sexism and Unconscious sexism.
- Institutional Sexism: explicit and implicit rules or norms that structure social institutions that function to exclude women, or place men above women. At some points in history these rules have been explicit, for example when women were explicitly denied the vote or prohibited from owning property. Other norms are implicit, rather than explicit. For example, while women are expected to do the majority of the work raising children and most people blame mothers rather than fathers for many child-related expectations, this rule is implicit because it is not written down anywhere as an explicit law (Cudd and Jones 109)
- Unconscious Sexism: psychological processes, tacit beliefs, emotions and attitudes that create, sustain or exploit sexual inequalities (Cudd and Jones 110-112). Cudd and Jones give a number of examples of unconscious sexism, if one is interested, one can also try the Implicit Association Test developed by Harvard psychologists to test for the presence of some of these mechanisms.
One of the reasons I find the concepts of institutional and unconscious sexism to be useful is because they help to explain how sexism (and other forms of oppression) can persist even in cultures that officially and explicitly repudiate sexism.
Further, although individual sexism is problematic, it is much less troubling than its institutional and unconscious forms. If it were only individuals who (randomly) held some negative views of other groups then this would be harmful to those individuals who were exposed to these negative ideas, but it would not be an injustice. When these prejudices work in concert because a number of people in a powerful group systematically hold these views and our institutions are arranged so as to reinforce the unequal status of some, then this becomes a matter of justice. The distinction between individual and institutional sexism also marks the difference between being a sexist (individual) and oppression (institutional).
In Portal 2 you are still working against individuals at different points, but you are also working against the institution (Aperture Science). One of the ways this is signalled visually is through the more dynamic nature of the environment (see for example, this promotional video made by Cave Johnson to encourage investment in Panels). In Portal 1, Chell used the environment to escape GLaDOS, but in Portal 2 we get a better sense that the environment is GLaDOS. Parts of the testing chambers move on their own and assemble themselves as Chell tries to navigate to the end. The environment is more threatening in Portal 2. There were several places where I found myself pausing because I was worried if I darted past the assembling walls, they might try to trap me. In Portal 2 there is the institution of Aperture Science, which is represented by GLaDOS, but also goes beyond GLaDOS.
GLaDOS becomes a less important figure in some ways. For example, Portal 2 introduces a new character in Wheatley. Wheatley is the first character you meet in the game as Chell awakens from her time in stasis. At the beginning he is rather incompetent and relies on Chell for assistance. He cannot do much other than follow a pre-ordained path (in the form of a track) and one of the first things he asks Chell to do is catch him as he tries to remove himself from the pre-set path. Wheatley is also dependent on Chell to plug him into the Aperture Science facility at various points so that he can work his electronic magic to get them beyond certain points.
If we take this as a metaphor, we might think about the cliche “Behind every great man, there is a great woman.” This quote might predate feminism, but it is a theme many feminists have taken up when they have discussed how much of the success of individual persons depends on whether they received support from others and the institutions within their society.
Wheatley can do some things that Chell cannot, but in order to do them, he needs her assistance and support. Without her support, his abilities are useless. But this is not a one-way relationship. Chell, too, has abilities that Wheatley does not and without his support her abilities are limited. We might think of this portion of the relationship between Chell and Wheatley as one of mutual support where each is able to enhance the abilities of the other by bringing their unique talents into the mix. It might represent a kind of difference feminism (though it is also important to note that there is a good deal of feminist debate about the sameness/difference dilemma in addressing inequality. Some feminists have noted that the sameness/difference dilemma is created by and sustains men as the unspoken standard of comparison).
We might also read this interaction as one that signifies the ways in which women participate in their own oppression. One strand of liberalism that some feminists have criticized is the idea that if something is “freely chosen” then it is not problematic. Feminists have noted that women often internalize their own oppression so that they come to interpret themselves as their oppressors see them. Further, since women have been tasked with raising children in many societies, feminists have noted that women often participate in raising men to accept patriarchal norms and eventually take their place in patriarchal hierarchies (in part this is the result of how the choices are structured. For example, if you want to do best by your sons, given existent power hierarchies, then you should raise sons who can wield that power so that they don’t end up at the bottom of the hierarchy. Feminists want to criticize the existent power hierarchies, rather than taking them as given).
During this part of the interaction between Wheatley and Chell, Chell is constantly plugging Wheatley into the institution of power (Aperture Science). In a sense, Chell is training Wheatley to become a part of this institution by giving him access to the mainframe, which gives him his power. Wheatley is still working with Chell, but he is learning to be a part of this institution.
As the game progresses, however, Wheatley turns against Chell. Together Wheatley and Chell defeat GLaDOS by plugging Wheatley into the Aperture Science mainframe. At this point, Wheatley gets a taste of real power. He discovers what it would be like to control the whole facility. And to him, it feels good: orgasmically good (see this video at about 1:15). Once Wheatley is plugged in he gets the urge to test (which reminds me of Nietzsche’s troubling discussion of the Will to Power) he can’t get enough. He needs more testing. As testing progresses, however, he finds it less and less satisfying. He needs ever greater displays of his dominance in order to feel dominant.
I think this, too, is an interesting comment on power. One of the issues with power is that it often does not feel powerful. We tend to take our own experience as neutral and we tend to compare ourselves to those who are more powerful than us rather than those who are less powerful unless we consciously choose to reverse this trend (as some essays in the book, Men and Power, discuss). Men often complain that they don’t feel powerful, because they are thinking of their place in the masculine hierarchy, and all of the gender-policing they experience from other men. They fail to compare themselves to women, and so deny their own experience of power.
At this point, GLaDOS is reduced to a potato from one of many “science” projects at a “take your daughter to work day” display in Aperture Science, perhaps even the one created by Chell herself:
GLaDOS becomes much less threatening. She still does not like Chell (individual sexism?) but her dislike of Chell is no longer backed up by the institutional structures of Aperture Science. Instead, GLaDOS somewhat begrudgingly suggests that she and Chell should work together to defeat Wheatley. For much of the remainder of the game, Chell caries GLaDOS around, and GLaDOS is completely dependent on Chell to get her from one place to another.
This, too, might be seen as a metaphorical commentary on power structures. Some forms of feminist thought have conceived of a time when rather than patriarchy we might have had a matriarchy (not just as a thought experiment, but also relying on some anthropological data from matriarchal societies). Some feminists think this would be a good thing, but many other feminists have objected that it would be bad because it still leaves in place the ‘logic of domination’ (an idea popularized by Karen J. Warren, and one that might be made even more relevant by the fact that GLaDOS is a potato).
A general form of the logic of domination is as follows:
P1. A has X characteristic.
P2. Whatever has X is morally superior to whatever lacks X.
P3. B lacks X
P4. Thus, A is superior to B (from 1-3)
P5. For any A and B, if A is morally superior to B, then A is morally justified in subordinating B.
C. Thus, A is morally justified in subordinating B (from 4 & 5).
Warren questions P5 and therefore denies the conclusion. Even if X were a trait that unproblematically identified moral superiority, it does not follow that one would be justified in subordinating those who lack X. (There are also many questions we could ask about whether any trait X actually does confer moral superiority, but the argument here is that even if we grant that point for the sake of argument, the conclusion does not follow.)
The problem with (some forms of) matriarchy, as responses to patriarchy, is that it leaves in place the logic of domination, but switches out the X of “masculinity” for the X of “femininity.” The more fundamental problem, according to Warren, is the logic of domination itself. Even if X trait were superior on some objective and non-problematic measure, why would that justify one who possesses X in subordinating one who does not possess X?
One of the elements of Portal 2 that I find interesting is that this “switching out” in terms of the power structure happens twice along gender lines. First, GLaDOS is in charge of the powerful Aperture Science facility and she behaves like a monster. Then, GLaDOS is reduced to a potato and Wheatley is given control. He, too, behaves like a monster and one who gets a kind of sexual gratification from his own monstrosity.
Finally, Wheatley is ousted from the system and GLaDOS takes over again. GLaDOS has regained her position as the antagonist of the plot, though one who has a slightly better understanding than she had at the beginning. But as GLaDOS regains control, she excises that part of her that understood the problematic of power-as-domination, and she deletes that part (see this video beginning at about 7:40). She does allow Chell to escape, but she is becoming thoroughly at one with the institutions of power represented by Aperture Science. In order to plug into the institutions of power, GLaDOS has to excise Caroline. This description also has an analog in some feminist discussions. For example, feminists who have criticized the whole sameness/difference debate have noted that in order for women to gain power under the current institutional structure that remains sexist, women have to “act like men” or take on the patterns of life characteristic of men. For example, women who succeed in academics and other professions tend to have fewer children. One of the big features of the gender-wage-gap can be attributed to whether someone is a mother. GLaDOS is able to regain her position in the structure of power, but to do so, she has to take on the requirements of that structure, which are themselves problematic.
At this point Wheatley is shown regretting some of the things he did while in power (see this video at about 13:30). Now that Wheatley is not a part of the power hierarchy, he can see that his behaviour when he was a part of that hierarchy was bad.
It is not better to have GLaDOS in control of Aperture science any more than it was better to have Wheatley in control. None of these situations is particularly “good” or “better” than the other because each retains the problematic power structure that lies at the heart of the inequalities. What requires criticism is the structure of power itself.
3. But Still, Portal 2 Exploits Fat-Hatred, Doesn’t It?
Perhaps there is a sense in which Portal 2 is still problematic because some of the stereotypes that it exploits in order to make its point are stereotypes that draw on prejudices against fat people, but I think this is text rather than subtext. Once again, there is “fat-hatred” in the text (i.e. characters express devaluing ideas about those who are fat), but I am not sure it is there in the sub-text (i.e that what the characters express also expresses authorial intent).
There certainly is a great deal of individual and institutional prejudice against fat people in the real world. But I think the pattern of fat-prejudice in Portal 2 is similar to that of gender prejudice. Fat-hatred is put into the mouths of those who represent the system of Aperture Science. For example, GLaDOS engages in fat-prejudice when she is plugged into “the system,” but defends Chell against Wheatley’s fat-prejudiced remarks once she is unplugged. Wheatley never accuses Chell of being fat when he is not plugged into the Aperture Science mainframe (though nor does he defend Chell against GLaDOS’ accusations of Chell’s fatness). Once he is plugged in, however, he does accuse her of being fat and unlovable.
If one plays the muti-player version then one is informed that part of the Aperture Science data-base contains the information that humans do not like weight variances, and referring to these variances is a way to insult them. I think this adds to the idea that it is the structures, or institutions of sexism and other forms of domination that are most problematic. Fat-hatred is part of these databases and can be drawn upon by any who are plugged into the systems of power-as-domination to insult those who it seeks to control.
So, yes, it is true that the gendered insults in Portal 2 do rely not only on ideas about which gender should be more concerned about their appearance, but also on cultural prejudices against fat people.
But this might also be either a sign of solidarity or a potential way-in to feminism. Gabe Newell, for example, is a large man. And there have been many criticisms of him that focus on his weight. But perhaps this is one of those aspects of the different ways-in-to-feminism that different people experience. Many people don’t really understand complaints about oppression until they have experienced or recognized an aspect of power structures that is oppressive against them. Perhaps the fat-jokes are a way to open the conversation to those gamers who have not experienced gendered insults, but have experienced weight-insults. They show a continuity among different forms of oppression and a way they are plugged-into the structures of domination. I don’t know whether that was the intent, but it is possible.
4. Absurd Commentary
This really has nothing to do with the post so far, but there are some aspects of the internet debate about the fat-feminism issues in Portal 2 that are really just annoying, uninformed and absurd.
Here is an annoying bit written by user GeorgeCostanza on Smash Patriarchy’s thread on the topic:
Cave Johnson, a major character in the Portal/HL2 universe, is a male who messed up the world and ruined everything. Chell, the protagonist in Portal 2, is fighting against the evil things he has done.
And look at you complaining it’s sexist.
But this misses the point. It is not the mere gender of the character or their actions that determines whether something is sexist. In many periods of history that were definitely institutionally sexist (against women), many people would agree that if things were messed up this was the result of a man’s actions. The reason this would not have been sexist against men, or been a way to disprove the institutional sexism that existed against women, was because women were not able to vote, run for president or any other political office, own or control property and so forth. If things went awry, then it was probably the result of something a man did because women did not have much non-local power to affect things.
Being held responsible can be a form of respect, and being denied responsibility can be a form of disrespect (when one is absolved of responsibility because one is considered to “child-like” or “emotional” as women of the time were considered). So the issue is not whether a fictional work portrays a man (or a woman) as having messed things up that determines whether the work is sexist against women. What matters crucially is the explanation that is given and the broader context of the society portrayed within the work.
5. Related Links
National Post Review of Portal 2 and Interview with writers Erik Wolpaw and Jay Pinkerton
The Border House’s rho has written a post about one part of the developer’s commentary where they mention refering to the generic gamer as “they” in the commentary rather than “he” as they did in Portal 1‘s commentary, which I also found quite charming when I listened.
Pop Matters has an interesting feminist take: “Her Name Is Caroline”: Identifying the Misbehaving Woman in ‘Portal 2’
GamePro describes GLaDOS as a Feminist Icon and compares her to Emily Dickinson.
This is Portal 1 commentary, but I just re-found these posts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and I had forgotten how much I enjoyed reading them after I played the first game. Argues that GLaDOS is teaching Chell to murder her because she wants to commit suicide to escape her bondage.
[ETA] This series of posts makes me somewhat uncomfortable, so I was not sure whether to include them here. But Rants from Planet Damon has been doing a series that Damon considers to be a feminist analysis of Portal 2. I have my reservations; for example, in the first post which is mainly a plot summary [spoiler warning for the link] Damon begins with :
TBH, when I first heard of Portal, I didn’t think it sounded all that interesting. And when I first heard of all the “Portal as a great feminist manifesto” buzz surrounding the game, I was like WTF, people take this shit way too seriously. Having played both Portal 1 and 2, I can now say: in both cases, I was so very wrong. And now! I want to yak at length about my thoughts re: the game, the characters, and, yes, the very awesomely (read: non-shrill/militant/batshit/beat-over-head) feminist subtext in the game.
Which is not very promising. Anyone who thinks both of the following a) most feminism is “shrill/militant/batshit/beat-over-head” and so deserves dismissal and b) they can give a publication-worthy feminist analysis of a game is suspicious in my books. But some of what Damon has to say is worth reading. I find Damon’s analysis of Chell a little thin, but Damon’s analysis of GLaDOS does have some interesting points regarding the relationship between Chell and GLaDOS. Still: “shrill”? Really? Damon, do you realize how gendered that insult is? It is so often applied to dismiss legitimate claims made by women, you think you can speak for us?
Well, I found the game to be sexist in another way that grated on me.
*SPOILERS*
At the end of the game when your fighting Wheatley and installing the corrupted cores, you pick up the “Adventure Core” who is doing nothing but spewing sexist harassment “pretty lady”, “beautiful lady” as well as spewing sexism in it self “Stand behind me and I’ll protect you.” I also couldn’t get over the “Space Core’s” “Hey lady.” As if it were a man it’d be “Hey, Hey YOU!” Lest to say I was happy all of them ended up in space.
Yeah, that is a good catch. But then again, I am not sure that it is sexist at the level of subtext, even if it is sexist at the textual level. There is a difference between what a character says and what an author is saying by using the character to say those things.
I found that whole bit rather cathartic, myself. The “hey pretty lady” part (in this video around 2:45) reminded me of the street harassment/bar harassment that one often faces as a woman. I thought it was part of the way that Chell is more gendered in this game.
But I don’t think the authorial intent was to endorse this kind of harassment, since these cores are corrupted, after all. Further, you get to send them all into space, as you note. I found that part rather awesome. Usually when a woman is harassed by an “adventurer” looking to buy her a drink, and not leaving her alone with all the “pretty lady” comments, there is little a woman can do about it.
In this scene, though, you get to totally destroy the adventurer. Send him out into space where he won’t be able to harass anyone ever again. It is like Hollaback, only way better. It sort of reminded me of the game “Hey Baby,” which the Border House discussed in this post. Sending them out into space was really cathartic for me, and not quite as violent as “Hey Baby,” so it kept with the mainly non-violent nature of Portal.
I got the sense that the adventure sphere’s horrible attitudes stopped at the text. In context, his suggestion to take “a little lady break” in the middle of a timed boss fight, in a room filled with fire (which he comments on just before), when he can’t even *move* on his own, is not just condescending but patently absurd. Chell’s competence hasn’t been in question up to this point, and has been reinforced by both GLaDOS and Wheatly’s increasingly frustrated attempts to get her to crack. In addition, the sphere says this during the second phase of the boss fight, where players understand the mechanics and haven’t yet met serious resistance from Wheatly, which is the point in the game where players are *least* likely to agree. Someone smarter than I am can probably unpack the phrase “a little lady break” better than I could, but my sense is that the invoking of gender stereotypes is deliberate and intended to mock those stereotypes, highlighting them as emblematic of a blowhard.
There’s a less gendered example of the adventure sphere’s grossly inflated sense of importance later that players have to go out of their way to see: if you hold the adventure sphere for a few minutes, he’ll eventually suggest to the player that they come up with a cool comeback line to use on Wheatly, except the adventure sphere is going to say it instead. Letting him suggest it changes Wheatly’s dialogue slightly later, where the adventure sphere gets the opportunity to use the line and completely flubs it.
In a neat bit of subtext, the corrupt cores, as well as the corrupt turrets, are all played by the same actor – the omnipresent Nolan North, who despite his talents tends to turn up as the voice of innumerable generic white male protagonists, particularly Nathan Drake of Uncharted. It’s pretty easy to read the adventure sphere as a parody of these roles, and Drake in particular.
That certainly is a bit of interesting added text and subtext!
In reference to the fat jokes and your mention of Gabe Newell’s weight, Internet folk (and especially the more obnoxious variety of Valve customers) have been making of Gabe’s weight for quite some time. Given how clever some of Valve’s writers are, I wouldn’t be surprised if the fat jokes were them taking an opportunity to do some role reversal by sticking the player (and a lot of their antagonistic fans) in a situation wherein a power-mad computer made fun of them for being fat.
Thanks for your comment, Mr Barnaby. Do you think the role-reversal remains problematic? Does it continue to reinforce negative views about fat people, even though Mr. Newell might get some kind of joy at the revenge? Would that make the role-reversal ultimately self-defeating?
Wow! What a fantastic read, thank you for writing this (:
I wonder it might mean that the Aperture Science institution is, itself, failing – bankrolled and bankrupted by the same man, and having lost some (many? all?) inventions to corporate espionage by Black Mesa. The centre is literally built on top of their previous failures. And most of the inventions that we do see, such as the gels and the portal gun, were actually failures with regards to their original purpose. Instead they became… testing aids.
That is a really interesting question. In some sense the way that Aperture Science was built on layers upon layers of its own failures felt a little to me like the problem of trying to eliminate oppression by simply allowing more people access to the oppressive structures we already have, rather than rethinking those structures. What did you think it meant?
I am not really sure what to make of the gels as failures. I’d love to hear more what you think it might mean.
Thanks for the interesting and thought-provoking comment.
It’s interesting that you mention “rethinking the structures”. Because, of course, the test chambers have a superficial change in shape (spherical to boxes) from the older to the new sections of the enrichment center. The purpose changes not at all but they have the veneer of being different.
As for the gels, I seem to recall that the blue and orange gels were originally supposed to be digestive aids but proved to be, well, lethal. The white gel was made from the same lunar rocks that poisoned Cave Johnson, and he mentions hoping that somehow this gel and the portals might help to cure him.
[…] Credits bakka111] Condividi questo […]
[…] detail than I’m going to, and if you want to read more about it, I recommend taking a look at this article that has a solid grounding in feminist theory and this one that gives a good interpretation of […]
[…] Comments « Portal 2 and Feminism […]
Bravo, very interesting article, very thoughtful analysis.
I would like to add two things. First I’m completely surprised that Wheatly results of testing is called sexual gratification, I’ve never seen it this way and I still don’t. This chapter is called “the itch”, sure maybe I came form Victorian times but I refuse to see sexual connotation everywhere but I do know how good it feel to scratch the itch from mosquito bite, I don’t find anything sexual in it though. That’s just my opinion.
Second what I find lacking in these analisiys of power in Portal 2 is this power dynamic between Glados and Chell. When defeated second time, Glados is turned into potato and Wheatly is put in charge. When Chell picks up Glados potato, the situation is more complicated then Glados being just striped from power, Chell’s situation in power structures haven’t changed and yet she has now more control over Glados then she has over her. What to make of this ? I don’t know but I’m interested in your opinion.
Actually I find this dynamic very interesting storywise and presenting Portal 2 ending in different perspective. Does Chell picks Glados potato to help her defeat Wheatly ? Nonsense, Chell defeated Glados, she sure can handle Wheatly herself and Glados actually doesn’t provide any help. Glados only can save aperture from destruction ? I highly doubt Chell cares about Aperture well being, in fact I think she does want it destroyed. I think the reason Chell picked potato Glados and traveled all their way up is just because Chell wants and is mocking Glados in her silent way. The decision to put her back in charge comes only as realization, she does no have enough time to beat Wheatly and escape from Aperture destruction. That leaves us with ending when we supposedly see Glados in charge again, well technically she is but i can’t help but see final Glados speech as a boasting of insecurity and rightly so. I just imagine Chell’s face when she hears that Glados let her go, eyeballing her and smirking, with clear signal: “You’d better hope I won’t be coming back because I had by your throat and I can again” 😀
Sorry for text wall but I think I’m obsessed with this game. Cheers
I am not the only person to read Wheatley’s moans as sexual. There are perhaps other ways of reading them and perhaps this is left intentionally ambiguous to keep the game appropriate for a broader range of ages. But “the itch” is sometimes used to refer to sexual urges (as in the film, “The Seven Year Itch” about the desire to stray from one’s partner after 7 years).
It is interesting that you say that Chell does not need GLaDOS to defeat wheatly. In a sense that might be true, but in another sense it is not true. As Joel points out at Game Manifesto, the player does not actually have any autonomy in this game. I tried to play the game and skip picking up GLaDOS-the-potato, and one cannot advance in that way. The player has to pick up GLaDOS. Similarly, you cannot actually defeat Wheatly with out GLaDOS. So there is a sense in which GLaDOS is essential to beating Wheatley. Though in terms of the story, perhaps this seems unrealistic. However, if your analysis is correct (that Chell could not both beat Wheatley and escape AS in time without GLaDOS), then there does seem to be a sense in which Chell needs GLaDOS in the story. I’d be interested to hear more of your thoughts on this.
I agree that GLaDOS sounds insecure at the end. It is a very different end from the first game.
I’m not saying that my reading of Chell picking Glados potato as only possible one, just one that adds interesting perspective. Chell is good at survival in Aperture, there can’t be any doubt about it, so picking Glados sure can be also pragmatic and in fact it comes handy at the end. The way Chell impales Glados on portal gun, I would even call it deliberately disrespectful really speaks how now she is treated, as we travel Glados laments from time to time seeing destruction caused be Wheatly actions, I read it as way of kind of “mocking revenge” from Chell, she can’t really be bothered by Aperture collapsing.
When playing Portal 2, I wondered how the introduction of male characters would throw off the streamlined dynamic between Chell and GlaDOS.
I feel that Wheatley and Cave were stupid, bombastic, and power-hungry, (perfect negative male stereotypes) but they were still solid characters. Every character in the game had an interesting personality and gender was a part of it, but never the only part. Valve’s depiction of gender was mostly great, because they didn’t worry about overreacting to stereotypes, they just stayed true to the characters.
My only complaint is the weakening of GlaDOS. The writers tried too hard to make GlaDOS sympathetic. Even before the potato incident, her threats were sounding pretty thin. They should have left her a cold, vicious, deceptive, passive-aggressive monster with the power to hurt Chell, but they must have been too concerned with portraying a female character with those negative qualities. She did have a nice “redemption” at the end, but for most of the game she overshot sympathetic and ended up at wimpy.
That’s my perspective as a naive, sheltered white male. Of course I loved the game, and the many opinions gathered here taught me a lot. Thanks for a great blog!
they didn’t neuter GLaDOS’s threats to make her sympathetic. they did it because Portal 2 had a larger audience than Portal 1, and the players that hadn’t already met GLaDOS were extremely put off by her overt, boiling hostility. they didn’t have an existing relationship with GLaDOS to understand the context of what was happening. to them, it just felt like the game was a randomly hostile and unpleasant experience.
personally, i wish i’d gotten to see her in her full, raging majesty. i fell in love with her in Portal 1, and in Portal 2, all i wanted was to atone for what i’d done to her. during her wake-up sequence i was trying desperately to figure out how to drop Wheatley, get out from behind the railing, and run to her side. (yes, i got the Good Listener achievement on my first playthrough.) but all in all, Portal 2 was a game as well as a story, and if they hadn’t toned her down, Valve would have lost out on a lot of new players.
[…] Portal 2 and Feminism […]
[…] I had after reading some developer commentary and watching the trailer at E3. The second was after I had played the game and was describing the feminist analysis of structural power relations t…. Thanks […]
[…] about some of the insults GLADoS levels at you that centre around Chell’s weight. The main criticism I’ve seen is that Valve, apparently, just assumed that’s all women do when […]
[…] weibliche Gamer- wie Leserschaft gibt es schon wunderbare Gegenbeispiele zu solchem Unsinn (bspw. Portal). Vielleicht gibt es dann auch irgendwann mal Superhelden-Design abseits vom […]
[…] videogames with female heros – mass effect, portal. […]
This is the best piece of feminist writing on video games I have ever encountered. You’re critical without being condemning. You acknowledge positive components of video games without dismissing them. And most importantly, you clearly have a deep appreciation of video games. This was eye-opening for me as a male gamer and made me love Portal 2 all the more. Thank you.
Thanks!
[…] weibliche Gamer- wie Leserschaft gibt es schon wunderbare Gegenbeispiele zu solchem Unsinn (bspw. Portal). Vielleicht gibt es dann auch irgendwann mal Superhelden-Design abseits vom […]
(Yes i am commenting this in 2015, also apoligising for any further mispelling or bad choice of words, as english is not my mother language).
Your text is really really interesting, but you pointed something that bugged me quite a bit, so that begged the question. How is a insult related to body weight and shape and image related to gender? Because i am a cisgendered male, and i have been called “fat” my whole life. People won’t let me forget that, not even my family. And the only time someone would add sexism to it would be by using the shape of my hips as an insult target (but only about my ass, not the rest of my body). Otherwise, i never felt as they were using sexism towards me, they just hate fat people. And yes, i am aware that “fat” is something women might call each other, and men might call women fat too. But i personally don’t think that makes the insult “fat” itself gender-based. It’s not really about myscommenting, it’s about body image. I know i got 4 years later to the party, but if it’s not too much to ask, i really want you to please clarify this to me.
Hi Lucas,
Notice that I write: “‘fat’ is a gendered insult in this particular instantiation.” So what I am saying is that it is a gendered insult IN THIS CASE. It is gendered AS IT APPEARS IN THE GAME. I don’t think it is always gendered, sometimes it can be applied to men, too.
But when men are called fat, they are usually overweight. Women are often called fat without being overweight. Chell is not overweight. In fact, Chell is quite fit. So I think there is a gendered difference in the use of the insult.
For men: fat is used to body shame men who are overweight. Additionally, the way ‘fat’ is used to shame men often draws on the idea that fat men are more feminine (e.g. “manboobs” and the bit you mention about your hips).
For women: fat is used to further the narrow range of acceptable bodies even for women who are not overweight at all. It is, of course, ALSO used as an insult for women who are overweight. But this specific use of the insult ‘fat’ for women who are fit is a gendered use of the insult.
I agree that fat-hatred exists, but it is still gendered because the threshold for being considered ‘fat’ is much lower for women than it is for men. In addition, fat-shaming of men draws on misogyny by comparing fat men to women.
I hope that helps. Here is what I originally wrote. I do think I explained why it is gendered in the original:
In any case, that really isn’t my argument at all. It is loudmoney’s argument, and I was simply trying to recognize that it has some merit.