The Quiet, as she's known is a professional sniper who also happens to be mute. Hence the extraordinarily inventive name, I suppose. It's her choice of battlefield attire that has people up in arms.
Before I begin a rambling essay entry, it's worth giving a little backgroun context for those unfamiliar with the series. Metal Gear Solid is an over-the-top, fourth wall breaking videogame series, famous for it's emphasis on stealth and sneaking, rather than shooting everything in sight. The vast majority of the cast are larger than life caricatures with tragic battlefield histories and the series is famous for it's ridiculously convoluted plots, self-referential nods and - perhaps somewhat unexpectedly - strong commentaries about the nature of warfare. It's Japanese people, that should be all the explanation required!
I'm not particularly impassioned about the feminist agenda, and yes, I realise that this is purely a videogame fantasy, but here's what all the fuss is about:
Remember Quiet's job description? She's a sniper. I'm not entirely convinced that particular outfit is going to be any sort of functional anywhere, much less have any kind of practicality about it. Where does she keep her ammo pouches? How is she protecting herself from any sort of environmental hazards that might occur in the middle of a war? Granted, this is the barmy Metal Gear universe we're discussing here, but she doesn't look very battle-weary. Matter of fact, she looks like a pixel perfect bikini model. No scars? And this chick isn't even built like a solider. She looks about as hard as most professional footballers; as if a light breeze might break a few ribs. I don't see an experienced soldier there, do you?
Unlike some men I know, I don't actually posses a pair of breasts myself but I'm lead to believe that they can get in the way when performing any sort of physical activity. Physical activity such as sports, or you know, war.
Perhaps we're all getting ahead of ourselves here - we know nothing of Quiet's history or personality, it could be that she's using her sexuality as a weapon, or that she's recalling the Picts, who fought naked because they were that glorious combination of hard as nails and batshit insane. Or perhaps, people are simply overreacting to the fact that there's a sexy girl in a piece of entertainment. Wouldn't that be a turn up for the books?
My interest in the debate about her choice of attire spawned from reading an article posted on fark.com, in which the author comments about how all female characters in every videogame ever are overtly sexualised and I think he might be arguing that first impressions - in this case especially so - give off the wrong impressions. He claims that Quiet looks like "a military themed stripper" and it's hard to disagree. Here's the original article.
I think what occurs to me most here, is that this author is equating showing some skin with sexualisation. Now granted, Quiet's design is far beyond just 'showing some skin,' but the author then calls into play other female characters that he considers sexualised. Lara Croft goes without saying, though her recent (and utterly superb) reboot shows us a girl who isn't rocking grossly oversized breasts and is a fully competent human character, flaws and all. Perhaps the industry is growing up in it's representation of women.
But it's the citation of Cortana as a sex symbol that I really have to question the competency of the author. Cortana is an artificial intelligence who manifests herself as a blue, naked, hologram.
On a review of her image, two things strike me: that her "nakedness" isn't the first thing you notice about her, and well, she doesn't exactly ooze sexiness. Maybe I'm just not that into AI holograms, but I think there's a certain danger of equating nudity and sexuality as the same thing. Just because a person isn't wearing clothes doesn't automatically imply seductiveness or arousal; consider all the rampant nakedness in Renaissance art. My impression was always that this was exactly what Cortana's design was meant to evoke, the simple aesthetics of the female form, not a deliberate attempt at appearing attractive.
Suffice it to say, this being the internet and me having had my interest piqued, the myriad comments about the portrayal of women in games and other media lead to some interesting viewpoints to consider. Check out this videoblog:
Personally, I feel there's some truth to the notion of the Disposable Male, that a man's wants and needs will always be placed last - even among peers. How often is a guy told to 'man up' if he has a particular issue to deal with? Perhaps we all fail at attending to the needs of both men and women in modern society and it's time for a change in the thinking between how we address our differences. Food for thought there.
The best portrayal of equality between men and women that I've seen in entertainment, is likely the most recent Battlestar Galactica. On the show, men and women are both fully rounded characters with various attributes and flaws, but there's no distinction as to why a man may be better suited to a particular task than a woman, or vice versa. There are female fighter pilots, female soldiers, and a female president all of whom are successful or unsuccessful not because of their gender, but because of their character. One scene in particular comes to mind when the crew organise a boxing fight so that they can blow off steam and nobody bats an eyelid about a guy going toe-to-toe with a girl.
So is Quiet a throwback to a male dominated throwback, or should we judge her first on her character an her actions rather than appearances?
