PDA

View Full Version : Armor designs for females?



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Amazon
2017-08-03, 03:24 PM
The Grrlpower webcomic actually lampshades that by making it part of the lore that whatever it is that gives people superpowers (no one has figured it out yet) also seems to universally give them exaggeratedly "perfect" physiques and appearances.

But we have plenty of male super heros who are short, fat and with unconventional appearances, but not ONE! Female they are all tall and slender.

Bonus pictures:
https://cdn.theconversation.com/files/107143/area14mp/image-20160104-27611-1h8q1f2.jpg
https://images.moviepilot.com/images/c_limit,q_auto:good,w_600/wonder-woman-vs-ms-marvel-why-marvel-are-more-sexist-than-dc-by-a-long-thin-shot-be1e7914-01a8-43ef-b85c-c15e82424384-jpeg-120467/wonder-woman-vs-ms-marvel-why-marvel-are-more-sexist-than-dc-by-a-long-thin-shot.jpg

Ashiel
2017-08-03, 03:28 PM
But I can't play a fighting game that uses medieval weapons as the main form of combat anywhere else, why should I reduce my amount of fun? Itís unfair.

It's like stop going to a park next to my house because it's badly preserved rather than fighting for it to improve.
Well, see, your idea of something improving doesn't necessarily mesh with someone else's idea of something improving. For example, you (or was it someone else) linked Rainbow Mika as an example of a character that's "wrong". Except, my brother's girlfriend loved Rainbow Mika. She was upset when Capcom decided to change the camera motions to hide her sassy spank during her super in the US release.

I'm more of a live and let live sort. I think you're both right, and both wrong. Kind of a yin and yang. You want to suggest some art you prefer? Go for it. You want to say "This makes me a bit uncomfortable", that's fine too. However, what I typically see (including in this thread) is condemnation and explicit declarations of "wrongness" based on peoples A) aesthetic preferences, or B) their moral preferences, which are not universal and to condemn these things is to tread upon the rights of others to enjoy those things.

So, in the same way that I rebuked idiots like Jack Thompson or Patricia Pulling, I'll go on rebuking anyone else who follows in their footsteps. We could all sit, hold hands, sing songs and share art. We could agree to like what we like, and influence the world through spreading what we enjoy. Or we can continue as we are doing, with nobody really giving any inches and everyone getting progressively more and more distant from one another, digging trenches.

I'm sitting on the fence, you see. I've no particular preference for the art one way or the other, so I'm naturally going to bite at whomever is invading over the fence. If it was the "We like the sexy" people trying to bash on the art you guys like, I'd be on your side instead. Of course, the only aggressors I've seen have been those who are morally outraged or trying to profess their aesthetic preference as the one true way. :smallannoyed:

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-03, 03:30 PM
But we have plenty of male super heros who are short, fat and with unconventional appearances, but not ONE! Female.


My comment wasn't a counterpoint, just an aside to something that comments on the situation.

Interestingly, male superhumans also get the same effect in that setting, and occasionally suffer through moments of being "beefcaked".

Amazon
2017-08-03, 03:35 PM
I go with the idea, if it's making someone uncomfortable, change it.

If someone is not having a good time with that, change it.

Too bad if some people liked, it's unfair that some people are having a good time while others are unhappy.

Obviously you have to be reasonable, if itís an important concept or a core element you donít have to change it, that goes without saying.

I bet a lot of people hated when good changes were made, too bad they had to be done.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-03, 03:40 PM
I wonder why they are improving. (http://kotaku.com/new-overwatch-character-shows-blizzard-really-is-listen-1689904549)

You do realize that the character was in development long before the criticism really got heated, right? And that her final character design had been decided prior as well?

They also followed her up with Sombra, who is traditionally attractive, as well as Anna who, while old, still has a Young version skin that is also conventionally attractive and follows the same general body types.

Best case scenario, they gave you one token character to shut you up.

Even on the Tracer pose controversy, they took her new pose from an ACTUAL PINUP and it still shows off her butt.

This example is flimsy at best. Essentially, it's portraying a temporary pander as a real victory. I'm honestly amazed more people weren't pissed off, but Blizzard knows how to PR the people who create this kind of drama: appease them once, then stop worrying about it. Because it's basically over. They already have your money, remember? They just need to keep their PR intact enough to make you remember that one token they gave you so they can get your money next time. Not fun getting played, is it?

(Also, forcing others to do a thing because you disapprove is exactly why various substance bans have occurred throughout history. And we know those have shown to eliminate people doing those things..... right?)

Edit:
Blizzard is doing some things right. They also are using those things they do right to fuzz over the stuff they do wrong. Buyer beware.

Amazon
2017-08-03, 03:48 PM
You do realize that the character was in development long before the criticism really got heated, right? And that her final character design had been decided prior as well?

They also followed her up with Sombra, who is traditionally attractive, as well as Anna who, while old, still has a Young version skin that is also conventionally attractive and follows the same general body types.

Best case scenario, they gave you one token character to shut you up.

Even on the Tracer pose controversy, they took her new pose from an ACTUAL PINUP and it still shows off her butt.

This example is flimsy at best.

Blizard cleary stated that the reason for the creation of that character was the feedback, what are talking about?

We now have:
-Mei, who is short and chubby.
-Sombra, who is Mexican, not tall.
-Anna, who is an elder.

That's diversity, in special for a game who only had tall and slender female characters with large... Body parts...

Ashiel
2017-08-03, 03:55 PM
But that wasn't the point!!!!! -_-'

The point was not how hot and sexy hobbits are, the point was how male heros can be something other than hot with supermodel like bodies! They can be short, tall, muscular, fat, ugly etc...
Follow me here for a moment. The hobbits aren't the usual heroes. They're basically a bunch of peasants who aren't heroic if their lives depend upon it, but then sort of become heroic as the story progresses. The fact they're not traditional or usual heroes is kind of the point. Since the post you responded to was talking about attractiveness, it very much was the point. You changed the point, but I'm not overmuch worried about that as long as the record is strait.




If it makes sense for a charatcer to be sexy and sexualized, go for it, the problem when that is the norm.
So far nobody's actually been able to prove that it is the norm in the context of the thread. Somehow we've gone from D&D art to super heroes (I think it was because at some point I mentioned gambit, or someone linked wolverine. I can't recall at this moment). And it's a problem to you perhaps, but you don't get to decide it's a problem for everyone. That's not your call. You can say you don't personally care for it. You can explain why it upsets your moral sensibilities. But just stating that it's a problem isn't particularly productive.


I dare you to find me one, ONE! Mainstream, classic and iconic female superhero who is not super sexy according to the beauty patterns of our society.
Elaborate. I've seen skinny supers, curvy super heroines, some with six arms, some with bones growing out of their flesh, some with flesh that slops off, some with strange tattoos, some with hag-like claws or talons, some tall, some short, some in between. I've seen them with black hair, blond hair, red hair, brown hair, silver hair, green hair, purple hair, stranger hair. More skin colors than you can shake a box of crayolas at. Big tits, small tits, medium sized tits. Bug butts, small butts, middle sized butts. I've seen ones that have an hourglass figure, and ones who are pretty even shaped.

Perhaps you're fishing for obese? In that case, no, I don't think I've seen any obese ones. I can't really think of any dude super heroes that were obese either. Except the Blob (and he's technically a villain, but I'm counting both as supers in this case).

Amazon
2017-08-03, 04:00 PM
Elaborate. I've seen skinny supers, curvy super heroines, some with six arms, some with bones growing out of their flesh, some with flesh that slops off, some with strange tattoos, some with hag-like claws or talons, some tall, some short, some in between. I've seen them with black hair, blond hair, red hair, brown hair, silver hair, green hair, purple hair, stranger hair. More skin colors than you can shake a box of crayolas at. Big tits, small tits, medium sized tits. Bug butts, small butts, middle sized butts. I've seen ones that have an hourglass figure, and ones who are pretty even shaped.

Tall, slender, curvy; Don't act like an idiot you know very well what I'm talking about.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-03, 04:01 PM
Blizard cleary stated that the reason for the creation of that character was the feedback, what are talking about?

We now have:
-Mei, who is short and chubby.


You sure? The image on the right is the ONLY blizzard-produced image of Mei without her armor.


https://funnypictures3.fjcdn.com/comments/By+golly+its+almost+as+if+this+was+the+original+_7 2179d24d0945dbf35964c7db538e54c.jpg

As a bonus, here's one of her skins. (After the waistline bug was fixed, so don't pull that.)
https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/004/652/230/large/leticia-reinaldo-gillett-mei2.jpg?1485294953


Just saying.

Give someone an exaggerated accent and make them brownish and suddenly all is well. (Or just give them padded clothes)

Ashiel
2017-08-03, 04:02 PM
Tall, slender, curvy; Don't act like an idiot you know very well what I'm talking about.
Kitty Pryde then. She's got a girl next door figure. She's not particularly curvy, isn't particularly tall, and she's not particularly lean.

Amazon
2017-08-03, 04:03 PM
You sure? The image on the right is the ONLY blizzard-produced image of Mei without her armor.


https://funnypictures3.fjcdn.com/comments/By+golly+its+almost+as+if+this+was+the+original+_7 2179d24d0945dbf35964c7db538e54c.jpg

As a bonus, here's one of her skins. (After the waistline bug was fixed, so don't pull that.)
https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/004/652/230/large/leticia-reinaldo-gillett-mei2.jpg?1485294953


Just saying.

Give someone an exaggerated accent and make them brownish and suddenly all is well. (Or just give them padded clothes)

Still short, round face and non standard beauty features.


Kitty Pryde then. She's got a girl next door figure. She's not particularly curvy, isn't particularly tall, and she's not particularly lean.

And a girl next door figure is not sexy according to the beauty patterns of our society?

But anyway, she is slender and curvy.
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/11111/111114723/3277412-4028860813-kitty.jpg
http://orig10.deviantart.net/ef77/f/2013/360/3/9/kitty_pryde_by_malabim-d6zgx01.jpg
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/10/104431/2938657-detail.jpg

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-03, 04:12 PM
Still short, round face and non standard beauty features.

Now you're just reaching.

You do realize that she has an idealized asian face, yeah? Like, specific attraction to Asian women is a thing. With lots of history. And she fits that bill 100%.

As I said, the women are made to be attractive. Even Ana is unusually attractive for an old lady. (Not to mention they made a Young Ana skin)

Like I said, Blizzard does just enough things right to skate by with their hot butts. (Which Mei has, also.)

Up to you to figure out if they meet your standards. If they do, give them money. But do remember that their response to a complaint that a Tracer pose was too sexy was to change it for an ACTUAL PINUP POSE and everyone shut up because it was different. Their PR guys are very, very good.

And, that's one company doing good things. (Though Overwatch hopes to keep making money longterm, unlike other games that don't bother with longetivity since a sequel will come next year. OW needs to last for at least 5 more years, according to Bliz.)

(Comic characters make for kinda mediocre examples since they vary wildly by artist.)

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-03, 04:17 PM
If Kitty Pryde is the "girl next door", I think I need to move to that neighborhood... :smallwink:


Regarding Mei...



Still short, round face and non standard beauty features.


All the artwork I've seen from Blizzard for this character makes her look noticeably "chubby" by popular media standards. Check the arms, facial outline, and hips.

Of course, this would make her fairly median for an present-day real-life American woman...

Amazon
2017-08-03, 04:20 PM
Now you're just reaching.

You do realize that she has an idealized asian face, yeah? Like, specific attraction to Asian women is a thing. With lots of history. And she fits that bill 100%.

As I said, the women are made to be attractive. Even Ana is unusually attractive for an old lady. (Not to mention they made a Young Ana skin)

Like I said, Blizzard does just enough things right to skate by with their hot butts. (Which Mei has, also.)

Up to you to figure out if they meet your standards. If they do, give them money. But do remember that their response to a complaint that a Tracer pose was too sexy was to change it for an ACTUAL PINUP POSE and everyone shut up because it was different. Their PR guys are very, very good.

And, that's one company doing good things. (Though Overwatch hopes to keep making money longterm, unlike other games that don't bother with longetivity since a sequel will come next year. OW needs to last for at least 5 more years, according to Bliz.)

(Comic characters make for kinda mediocre examples since they vary wildly by artist.)

Have I said that the characters have to be ugly? I don't think so.

And she is not an idealized Asian face, her face is too round, big and she doesn't have a v shaped jaw.

As I said, that's not a bad thing, women are attractive in all forms, ages and shapes.

So all is an evil marketing strategy, rather than... You know interesting characters, of course, sounds reasonable... *Slowly backs away* the way you view the reality around you is interesting it must be very fun to see an evil plot everywhere.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-03, 04:29 PM
Have I said that the characters have to be ugly? I don't think so.

And she is not an idealized Asian face, her face is too round, big and she doesn't have a v shaped jaw.

As I said, that's not a bad thing, women are attractive in all forms, ages and shapes.

So all is an evil marketing strategy, rather than... You know interesting characters, of course, sounds reasonable... *Slowly backs away* the way you view the reality around you is interesting it must be very fun to see an evil plot everywhere.

I hope you had fun making up stories in this post.

I have given Blizzard their goodness. While also pointing out the other edge and noting controversies they easily sidestepped without legitimately addressing, and a word of caution that many companies will do the minimum they can to get rid of a problem. Blizzard is no exception.

I also encouraged you to support the company if you like what they're doing.

At which point did that involve me putting on a tinfoil hat? I'll answer for you: Never.

We have other boards for playing pretend, though. If you still want to. The Freeform RP boards are great for this kind of thing.

Liquor Box
2017-08-03, 04:36 PM
https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/lotr/images/5/57/Gimli_at_the_siege_of_moria.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20070726164348
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/deathbattlefanon/images/a/a9/The_Thing.png/revision/latest?cb=20150223191205
http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/starwars/images/5/50/Darth_Maul_profile.png/revision/latest?cb=20140209162228
http://www.writeups.org/wp-content/uploads/Beast-X-Men-Avengers-Marvel-Comics-glasses-h.jpg
https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/hellboy/images/0/08/Hellboy_2.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/250?cb=20080103220603

Seriously, I can do five of these for any one similar woman you want to produce. And this is just scratching the surface. What if we included female protagonists, primary antagonists, heroes, etc. who are old, vs. old men? 90% of the old or middle-aged women you'll find will have some explanation for why they're still young and pretty looking -- they're an elf, or a vampire, or a succubus or something. Or remove subjective matters of attractiveness; since I'm sure I'll be inundated with nitpicking about how "this Psychology Today article I found proves that Hellboy is actually sexy, so he doesn't count!" How much do female body shapes vary? How much does their size?

Hmmm. I specifically critical of Amazon's long list because most of the characters she posted pictures of were not human, and your response is to post more pictures of characters who aren't human (except maybe the third one wearing the mask, I can't tell if it's human, but nor can I tell if it's ugly).

Seriously, I am amazed at how hard it is for you to find a depiction of a human hero that is ugly.

I suspect that they are out there, but not in anywhere near the numbers that Amazon seemed to be suggesting.

Amazon
2017-08-03, 04:41 PM
Back to the topic.

I wish more games were like Dark souls.

That games know what armor designs for females looks like.

Dragonexx
2017-08-03, 04:57 PM
I go with the idea, if it's making someone uncomfortable, change it.

If someone is not having a good time with that, change it.

Too bad if some people liked, it's unfair that some people are having a good time while others are unhappy.

Obviously you have to be reasonable, if itís an important concept or a core element you donít have to change it, that goes without saying.

I bet a lot of people hated when good changes were made, too bad they had to be done.

By what metric? Everything has the potential to make someone uncomfortable, considering there are thousands of different cultures, outlooks and personalities around the world. Should we only cater to the most insecure and whiny people?

Keltest
2017-08-03, 05:01 PM
Hmmm. I specifically critical of Amazon's long list because most of the characters she posted pictures of were not human, and your response is to post more pictures of characters who aren't human (except maybe the third one wearing the mask, I can't tell if it's human, but nor can I tell if it's ugly).

Seriously, I am amazed at how hard it is for you to find a depiction of a human hero that is ugly.

I suspect that they are out there, but not in anywhere near the numbers that Amazon seemed to be suggesting.

That's not a mask, its just his face.

Anyway, "being human" seems to be a fairly arbitrary measure, at least the way youre using it. The big blue guy is human, for example, he just doesn't look like a standard human. Ditto with the rock monster. Gimli, meanwhile, may not be human, but he looks close enough to have the same attractiveness standards apply to him. Hellboy is, admittedly, a demon (or something), and can thus look like whatever the artists want him to look like.

Orcus The Vile
2017-08-03, 05:16 PM
That picture is also so generic. Characters need to stand out. If I made a game with 50 different people wearing that, yeah... no. I don't care how good the mechanics were, it wouldn't sell.

This never got addressed.

I'm not saying that you should do a game with nothing but different colored kimonos, although...

http://www.downloadswallpapers.com/wallpapers/2012/julho/ryu-akuma-e-ken-wallpaper-13208.jpg

The point she was making is that an outline of how a real female fighter dresses like, the rest is up for the creator, just like a bunch of metal strapped to your body is the outline of an armor, but not all armors look alike, do they? Are they all boring too? Because they are all pieces of metal around someone's body?


You know what does sell? Hot buff guys and hot buff chicks wearing next to nothing beating the crap out of each other. Throw in a couple robots, maybe an old guy, and that game will sell every time.
And you know what? You bought those games. So it works. And you will continue to buy them despite your griping. So stuff your feminazi bs.

Muhahuahuahuahuahuahua, Are you five?



Hmmm. I specifically critical of Amazon's long list because most of the characters she posted pictures of were not human, and your response is to post more pictures of characters who aren't human

It's kind of rude to point and call people names.


(except maybe the third one wearing the mask, I can't tell if it's human, but nor can I tell if it's ugly).

LoL.


Seriously, I am amazed at how hard it is for you to find a depiction of a human hero that is ugly.

I suspect that they are out there, but not in anywhere near the numbers that Amazon seemed to be suggesting.

Here we go:
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/7666/1103654-b001.jpg
http://www.yaytrend.com/images/570x363/comic-book-character-with-white-face-mask-3644134.png
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/3125/132607-18677-110306-1-jonah-hex.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WCARJFSOvdM/VaMy6cNIk-I/AAAAAAAADTU/QU9MtdTPj24/s1600/bullseye.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pt/2/2f/Apocalipse_por_Robert_Atkins.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/452644991010344960/nmpa6AYX.jpeg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4e/67/8e/4e678e0d7b2427f9c7de807d4026281c--hulk--hulk-smash.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/Plastic_Man.jpg
http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2017/02/swamp-thing-v5-cvr.jpg
https://res.cloudinary.com/pvplive/image/upload/article_headers/SF-20161208-Akuma.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Killer_Croc_%28Adewale_Akinnuoye-Agbaje%29.jpg/170px-Killer_Croc_%28Adewale_Akinnuoye-Agbaje%29.jpg
http://www.dccomics.com/sites/default/files/GalleryChar_1920x1080_3_SSQUAD_3_19_450_57a29124ba 97c3.39753136.jpg
http://mindlessones.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/league1969a.jpg
https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/c/c4/Green_Lantern_Vol_5_1_Textless.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110714034051

Do I need to go on?

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-03, 05:17 PM
Back to the topic.

I wish more games were like Dark souls.

That games know what armor designs for females looks like.

Then give them money, so they make more.
And other companies see that they are making money and try to emulate them so THEY can make money, too.

Note how Darksouls makes money and people try to copy it because of that? Be part of the solution by supporting things that fix the problems you see and not supporting those that maintain or worsen them.

I 100% support that action and take part in it as much as I am financially able. Give money to the people who are helping, so they can help more, and don't give money to the people causing the problem, so they cause fewer of them. This has a long history of being effective.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-03, 05:20 PM
This never got addressed.

I'm not saying that you should do a game with nothing but different colored kimonos, although...

http://www.downloadswallpapers.com/wallpapers/2012/julho/ryu-akuma-e-ken-wallpaper-13208.jpg

The point she was making is that an outline of how a real female fighter dresses like, the rest is up for the creator, just like a bunch of metal strapped to your body is the outline of an armor, but not all armors look alike, do they? Are they all boring too? Because they are all pieces of metal around someone's body?



Muhahuahuahuahuahuahua, Are you five?




It's kind of rude to point and call people names.



LoL.



Here we go:
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/7666/1103654-b001.jpg
http://www.yaytrend.com/images/570x363/comic-book-character-with-white-face-mask-3644134.png
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/3125/132607-18677-110306-1-jonah-hex.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WCARJFSOvdM/VaMy6cNIk-I/AAAAAAAADTU/QU9MtdTPj24/s1600/bullseye.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pt/2/2f/Apocalipse_por_Robert_Atkins.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/452644991010344960/nmpa6AYX.jpeg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4e/67/8e/4e678e0d7b2427f9c7de807d4026281c--hulk--hulk-smash.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/Plastic_Man.jpg
http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2017/02/swamp-thing-v5-cvr.jpg
https://res.cloudinary.com/pvplive/image/upload/article_headers/SF-20161208-Akuma.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Killer_Croc_%28Adewale_Akinnuoye-Agbaje%29.jpg/170px-Killer_Croc_%28Adewale_Akinnuoye-Agbaje%29.jpg
http://www.dccomics.com/sites/default/files/GalleryChar_1920x1080_3_SSQUAD_3_19_450_57a29124ba 97c3.39753136.jpg
http://mindlessones.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/league1969a.jpg
https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/c/c4/Green_Lantern_Vol_5_1_Textless.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110714034051

Do I need to go on?

Almost all of those are villains, not heroes. They're the bad guys. Ugly so that we like them LESS.

That's not a very solid argument, friend.

Orcus The Vile
2017-08-03, 05:29 PM
Almost all of those are villains, not heroes. They're the bad guys. Ugly so that we like them LESS.

That's not a very solid argument, friend.

What are you talking about? Juggernaut joined the x-man for a while now.

Bullseye was part of the avengers.

Captain boomerang and killer croc part of the suicide squad.

Sinestro part of the lanterns.

They all are/were at some point heroes, unless former villains canít be heroes, in that case Scarlet witch, Quicksilver and Hawkeye are not avengers.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-03, 06:00 PM
Is "must be a hero" even a legitimate constraint?

It seems to me that the divergence between the depictions of male villains and female villains is perhaps even greater.


(In general, I do think it's kinda telling how much of this has now come down to "that example doesn't count because some random reason I just made up".)

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-03, 06:04 PM
What are you talking about? Juggernaut joined the x-man for a while now.

Bullseye was part of the avengers.

Captain boomerang and killer croc part of the suicide squad.

Sinestro part of the lanterns.

They all are/were at some point heroes, unless former villains canít be heroes, in that case Scarlet witch, Quicksilver and Hawkeye are not avengers.

I'm ok with those three not counting.

Captian Boomerang and Killer Croc were still villains on the suicide squad. They were COERCED into being not-villains with bombs that would make their heads go pop. I think we both know that this is a disengenuous example.

As I said, choosing characters who are primarily villains and using "but they were heroes for a little while" as the excuse is like using Superman as a villain because Injustice exists. It's reaching, and it weakens your argument by being based in technicalities.

If the Joker joined the Justice League for a set of comics, would you classify him thereafter as a Hero? (A Hero who just happens to have literally murdered people in horrorific ways on a regular basis)

I'm not even against your position. I'm just pointing out that a technicalities-based argument here is much weaker than you're hoping it to be.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-03, 06:05 PM
Is "must be a hero" even a legitimate constraint?

It seems to me that the divergence between the depictions of male villains and female villains is perhaps even greater.


(In general, I do think it's kinda telling how much of this has now come down to "that example doesn't count because some random reason I just made up".)

Still playing pretend.

"This example is weak" is different from "this example doesn't count."

Keltest
2017-08-03, 06:26 PM
Still playing pretend.

"This example is weak" is different from "this example doesn't count."

That doesn't really address his point. Female villains tend towards the extremes of being super sexualized or incredibly ugly, even more so than female heroes. For bonus points, when ugliness is the case, their ugliness is often either a result of or a motivation for their villainy. Because apparently women always need to be focusing on their appearance.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-03, 06:36 PM
That doesn't really address his point. Female villains tend towards the extremes of being super sexualized or incredibly ugly, even more so than female heroes. For bonus points, when ugliness is the case, their ugliness is often either a result of or a motivation for their villainy. Because apparently women always need to be focusing on their appearance.

Don't bother. Based on what I can see when someone quotes his replies to me, he's just trying to bait me into taking him off ignore, with petty insults and transparently inaccurate distortions. I mean, why else (evidently) spend so much effort on replying to someone who's rarely if ever going to see what you post? If he ever replies to anything I've actually said instead of what he wishes I'd said, it's in posts that no one quotes.

Of course, whenever I see one of those posts of his quoted, I'm just reminded of why I decided he's not worth the trouble of engaging. All he's ever done is reply to things I never said and caricatures of my actual positions, and then try to shift blame when called out on it.

kraftcheese
2017-08-03, 06:38 PM
Because companies listen to their bottom line first and foremost. When you refuse to buy their products, or organize a general boycott (which is also perfectly acceptable in my eyes) they listen more than if you keep giving them money and complain later.
You got a source for that one? I mean if you're not complaining to the company, and complaining publicly to influence other people who could potentially buy, how do they even know WHY you're not buying their stuff?

Also, it doesn't give a chance for something like an MMO or a game in early access to change character outfits, etc through updates; just my two cents on pure unadultered "vote with your wallet, no complaining".

Ashiel
2017-08-03, 06:52 PM
If Kitty Pryde is the "girl next door", I think I need to move to that neighborhood... :smallwink:
The more the merrier. Honestly, her figure is actually pretty plain compared to lots of girls I see in NC. Apparently it might be a regional thing, because when I've talked with some of my friends in California and Washington, they're rather surprised by what seems pretty commonplace around here. I saw a girl today that has Mei's sexy figure (curvy, big tits, cute face), and she was just random person #X.

Lots of women who would look just great in superheroine cosplay.

So I'm really thinking we must be talking about obesity, which Mei doesn't appear to be. She's not skinny, but she's attractive by all the usual ways. She has an hourglass figure, cute face, etc. Now, having fat super heroes could be a thing, but it seems like an odd thing, given the stuff super heroes typically do. It's kinda the same reason seeing fat adventurers strikes me as a bit odd, since I figure fighting orcs, jumping chasms, climbing cliffs, swimming rivers, and fighting dragons gets you a lot of cardio. Not to mention walking from point to point on a map.

But "beauty standards" is a hard thing to pin down. Aside from certain commonalities that seem to be more or less universal (mostly concerning secondary sexual characteristics), people have specific preferences that heavily influence what they find attractive, to the point of fetish levels even. I recall recently where someone was complaining Sgt. Hammer (HotS) was over sexualized. She's also curvy like Mei is.




Regarding Mei...

All the artwork I've seen from Blizzard for this character makes her look noticeably "chubby" by popular media standards. Check the arms, facial outline, and hips.

Of course, this would make her fairly median for an present-day real-life American woman...
Yeah, I'd definitely say Mei is pretty accurate to hot ladies in real life. Zara on the other hand is an anomaly around here. But again, it might be a regional thing. I know lots of people who have a Kitty Pryde figure, and lots of people who have a better figure (one of my pole dancing friends has a great hourglass figure, and is ripped as heck to boot).

Ashiel
2017-08-03, 06:54 PM
As I said, that's not a bad thing, women are attractive in all forms, ages and shapes.
Gonna have to disagree with you on that one.

Calthropstu
2017-08-03, 06:57 PM
I go with the idea, if it's making someone uncomfortable, change it.

If someone is not having a good time with that, change it.

Too bad if some people liked, it's unfair that some people are having a good time while others are unhappy.

Obviously you have to be reasonable, if itís an important concept or a core element you donít have to change it, that goes without saying.

I bet a lot of people hated when good changes were made, too bad they had to be done.

This is literally impossible to achieve. If some muslims and christians had their way, for example, there wouldn't be ANY female characters in most games or other media that weren't cooking or sewing... which would make the feminazis cry.
I like it the way it is... and it's the way it should be tbh. Any artist can make whatever they want, and anyone can buy it or not as they choose. Choice is a powerful thing.
What you state is the primary building block of tyranny. Trying to make everyone happy results in no one being happy.

Ashiel
2017-08-03, 07:04 PM
That's not a mask, its just his face.

Anyway, "being human" seems to be a fairly arbitrary measure, at least the way youre using it. The big blue guy is human, for example, he just doesn't look like a standard human. Ditto with the rock monster. Gimli, meanwhile, may not be human, but he looks close enough to have the same attractiveness standards apply to him. Hellboy is, admittedly, a demon (or something), and can thus look like whatever the artists want him to look like.

Incidentally, Zabraks aren't generally considered ugly (that's what Darth Maul is by the way). Twileks are generally seen as the sexy race in Star Wars, despite having very alien features, such as their lekku (head tails / tentacles). The male twileks are also ugly as sin by human standards, where Zabraks like darth maul are actually pretty attractive by human standards regardless of gender (albeit they have a little crown of horns on their heads).

Darth Maul is actually pretty handsome by human standards. He's lean and athletic. His face is actually pretty perfect (symmetrical, strong jaw line, no harsh scarring or damage). He hasn't even been affected by any sort of corruption through the dark side (despite being a Sith Lord, aside from the yellow Irsises the often controversial since it doesn't seem to affect everyone darkside corruption seems non existent for him).

Incidentally, both Ben Grim and Hellboy have had their ugliness (by human standards) mentioned as something that does or has bothered them, AFAIK. Ben even lamented being turned into a monster. Which returns to that bit where I said that ugly heroes tend to dislike that about themselves (such as with Deadpool).

Ashiel
2017-08-03, 07:07 PM
This is literally impossible to achieve. If some muslims and christians had their way, for example, there wouldn't be ANY female characters in most games or other media that weren't cooking or sewing... which would make the feminazis cry.
I like it the way it is... and it's the way it should be tbh. Any artist can make whatever they want, and anyone can buy it or not as they choose. Choice is a powerful thing.
What you state is the primary building block of tyranny. Trying to make everyone happy results in no one being happy.
Yeah, it goes both ways. Maybe Amazon and company are making others feel uncomfortable, and thus should change. Except, I would hazard to guess, that wouldn't be acceptable because to them they're the "good guys" making the "right choices".

Which, for the umpteenth time...
A. Aesthetic preferences.
B. Moral indignation.
C. All of the above.

Pick one. :smallsmile:

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-03, 07:15 PM
feminazi

feminazis

It's like it's 1996 and my co-workers have Rush Limbaugh on all afternoon... all over again...

You could try rising above that sort of mentality and address points instead of using attack-labels.

Ashiel
2017-08-03, 07:30 PM
It's like it's 1996 and my co-workers have Rush Limbaugh on all afternoon... all over again...

You could try rising above that sort of mentality and address points instead of using attack-labels.
At first I thought the word might be a bit low brow, but when Max posted this, I figured I'd double check. Google says the definition of feminazi is a radical feminist. So I searched radical feminist. The result led me to this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism), where the following is mentioned forthright.


Radical feminism is a perspective within feminism that calls for a radical reordering of society in which male supremacy is eliminated in all social and economic contexts.[1]

Radical feminists seek to abolish patriarchy by challenging existing social norms and institutions, rather than through a purely political process. This includes challenging the notion of traditional gender roles, opposing the sexual objectification of women, and raising public awareness about such issues as rape and violence against women.

By this definition, that actually seems pretty accurate given the context.

Carry on. :smallconfused:

kraftcheese
2017-08-03, 07:53 PM
At first I thought the word might be a bit low brow, but when Max posted this, I figured I'd double check. Google says the definition of feminazi is a radical feminist. So I searched radical feminist. The result led me to this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_feminism), where the following is mentioned forthright.



By this definition, that actually seems pretty accurate given the context.

Carry on. :smallconfused:
Wow. I'm not really sure how people with little social, political and economic power fighting for social change through making things socially unacceptable can be equated to a group that murdered millions of people and fervently promoted traditionalism...but I guess you can put words together in any order you like, regardless of sense.

Not to mention that I haven't seen anyone here say anything that falls under "radical feminism"; no-one here has said that the social status of women is the root of/the model of all oppression in the world, correct me if I'm wrong...I mean if you think "women shouldn't be objectified in media" is radical I don't even know what to tell you; this is entry-level, mainstream stuff.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-03, 08:11 PM
That doesn't really address his point. Female villains tend towards the extremes of being super sexualized or incredibly ugly, even more so than female heroes. For bonus points, when ugliness is the case, their ugliness is often either a result of or a motivation for their villainy. Because apparently women always need to be focusing on their appearance.

That wasn't the point I was addressing, now was it? I was addressing specifically using Villains (who have very different design priorities from Heroes) as examples of hero design weakens the argument since these examples are tangential and have different reasons.

I did not address the female villain design issue at all. Because I'm not opposed to it.

As I said, word for word, I'm not even opposed to the point. I just suggest using a better example set.



Don't bother. Based on what I can see when someone quotes his replies to me, he's just trying to bait me into taking him off ignore, with petty insults and transparently inaccurate distortions. I mean, why else (evidently) spend so much effort on replying to someone who's rarely if ever going to see what you post? If he ever replies to anything I've actually said instead of what he wishes I'd said, it's in posts that no one quotes.

Of course, whenever I see one of those posts of his quoted, I'm just reminded of why I decided he's not worth the trouble of engaging. All he's ever done is reply to things I never said and caricatures of my actual positions, and then try to shift blame when called out on it.

I love the attempted character assassination here and accusing me of a thing this guy literally just did to me.

I can only hope to one day be this classy and refined.

Ashiel
2017-08-03, 08:18 PM
Wow. I'm not really sure how people with little social, political and economic power fighting for social change through making things socially unacceptable can be equated to a group that murdered millions of people and fervently promoted traditionalism...but I guess you can put words together in any order you like, regardless of sense.
If I were to take a guess at it, it probably comes from the aggressive and authoritarian nature. Kind of like the term "Grammar Nazi", which is a pretty widely used term used to describe people that aggressively police things like punctuation in informal situations.


Not to mention that I haven't seen anyone here say anything that falls under "radical feminism"; no-one here has said that the social status of women is the root of/the model of all oppression in the world, correct me if I'm wrong...I mean if you think "women shouldn't be objectified in media" is radical I don't even know what to tell you; this is entry-level, mainstream stuff.
Specifically the combination of "challenging existing social norms and institutions" and the rather sexist hyper emphasis on "objectification of women", whether real or implied (pretty much entirely and wholly implied, usually by the critic, as best as I can tell).

I'm actually not really sold on the idea of objectification. It's my understanding that objectification has two meanings, which is either the degredation of a person to the status of an object, or the expression of something abstract in a more tangible way. I'm going to go with the former, given the context. Yet, my criticism of that position comes in the sexist nature in that it's not applied equally. See, if a man shows some skin and is shaped in a way that's considered sexy, then it's a "male power fantasy", but if a female character shows some skin and is shaped in a way that's considered sexy (even if that shape varies dramatically) it's "objectification".

I can't actually remember the last time I've seen a "sexy" character reduced to being akin to an object. For example, someone mentioned Ivy Valentine from Soul Calibur before, but she's actually one of the more developed and powerful characters in the series. So objectification seems to be a codespeak term for "something guys might find sexy" (and also quite a few girls, but who cares about them, right? *sarcasm*). Given the bent that radical feminists tend to have concerning sexual things in general, this seems pretty par for the course.

So while I think that objectifying anyone, male or female, would be a very bad thing, I don't think looking at someone and thinking they're sexy is that. I don't even think intentionally drawing or designing a character to be sexy, or titillate, or provocative is that either. By definition, objectification describes something else, which is far more inhuman and I would say much closer to treating people as property. There are ideologies in the world that would indeed place women into a lesser role, perhaps even a role of property, and I think that would be abhorrent. However, I'm pretty sure such ideologies are exceedingly alien to any possessed by individuals drawing sexy fantasy heroes. In fact, I'm pretty sure sexy fantasy heroines would be pretty upsetting to many of the ideologies that would actually objectify women.

Ashiel
2017-08-03, 08:20 PM
I love the attempted character assassination here and accusing me of a thing this guy literally just did to me.

I can only hope to one day be this classy and refined.

There's a term for this (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem), actually.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-03, 08:24 PM
You got a source for that one? I mean if you're not complaining to the company, and complaining publicly to influence other people who could potentially buy, how do they even know WHY you're not buying their stuff?

Also, it doesn't give a chance for something like an MMO or a game in early access to change character outfits, etc through updates; just my two cents on pure unadultered "vote with your wallet, no complaining".

I mean, complain all you like to the COMPANY.
But getting into the core audience and telling them that they're having badwrongfun and telling them that they are all sexists and misogynists for even participating or enjoying said product at all, is a bad ploy. (See: Kotaku and other companies fueling the GG fire and making everything worse by calling their own market a bunch of bigots and awful people.)

Better option is to show them good games that fit what you like and convert them to it, then shape the rest from there. Engage in actual dialogue, not just accusations.

I'll say again, this time real big because people keep missing it when I write small:

I DO NOT DISAGREE WITH THE MAIN POINT ABOUT FEMALES HAVING MORE/BETTER REPRESENTATION IN GAMES OF ALL VARIETIES. I ONLY DISAGREE WITH SOME METHODS OF ENACTING THIS CHANGE, AND HIGHLY ENCOURAGE OTHERS.

And this because I've worked in sales and psychology, and know the best methods for changing behavior. Because I have to change the behavior of highly delinquent, rather psychotic children and adolescents. (Amazingly, the stuff that works on normal kids still works on them. You just have to be unusually circumspect about it. And keep them from committing suicide. Or banging eachother in the hallways. Or killing eachother. My job is very stressful)

I like throwing rocks at echo chambers as much as the next guy, but I'm fully aware that beyond a certain point, challenging these things directly causes them to become MORE convinced of their point, not less. So finesse is needed, especially with a group as rabid and dogmatic as gamers.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-03, 08:25 PM
Wow. I'm not really sure how people with little social, political and economic power fighting for social change through making things socially unacceptable can be equated to a group that murdered millions of people and fervently promoted traditionalism...but I guess you can put words together in any order you like, regardless of sense.

Not to mention that I haven't seen anyone here say anything that falls under "radical feminism"; no-one here has said that the social status of women is the root of/the model of all oppression in the world, correct me if I'm wrong...I mean if you think "women shouldn't be objectified in media" is radical I don't even know what to tell you; this is entry-level, mainstream stuff.


Well, "women should be treated like people" is "radical feminism" per some sources, so, you know. :smalleek:

Personally, I go with, "let's not objectify people, don't treat them like meat or toys, don't distort or belittle or diminish them to pander or peddle".

And that happens to women (and female fictional characters) significantly more than it happens to men (and male characters), no matter how many false equivalencies ("but this male character showing skin too!", etc) and smokescreens ("I found this one picture of an "unattractive" female character!") get thrown up to obscure the issue.


I'd like my nieces to grow up in a world where they're judged by their actions and character and accomplishments, not on whether they're "pretty and feminine"... and where they aren't constantly bombarded with messages attempting to ingrain in them the message that their worth is determined by how sexually appealing they are and how much they look like girls on magazine covers. In world not filled with subtle little signals and insinuations that intelligence and competence and self-reliance are the opposites of "attractive" and "worthy". In a world where it's "OK" to be pretty AND smart AND athletic, or pretty, or smart, or athletic.


(PS - a slightly less deliberately-obtuse explanation for "feminazi (https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2012/03/12/feminazi-the-history-of-limbaughs-trademark-slu/186336)" for those not old enough to remember that bit of ugly radio demagoguery.)

Ashiel
2017-08-03, 08:30 PM
Well, "women should be treated like people" is "radical feminism" per some sources, so, you know. :smalleek:
Yeah, I think we're all going to get a lot of mileage out of this website. (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman)

EDIT: Incidentally, we actually do live in a world where it's seen as not only possible to be pretty, athletic, and smart, but that those things are often associated since being athletic tends to make you prettier. I've never met anyone who thinks stupid girls are a turn on, but maybe it's something that's considered attractive out in the wild. Maybe I just hang around people who just really don't like stupid no matter how pretty it is. I dunno. :smallconfused:

CharonsHelper
2017-08-03, 08:42 PM
I go with the idea, if it's making someone uncomfortable, change it.

If someone is not having a good time with that, change it.

Too bad if some people liked, it's unfair that some people are having a good time while others are unhappy.

Obviously you have to be reasonable, if itís an important concept or a core element you donít have to change it, that goes without saying.

I bet a lot of people hated when good changes were made, too bad they had to be done.

By that logic - should we allow women to be shown at all other than in a burka & veil? Some people will find it offensive otherwise.

Mendicant
2017-08-03, 09:00 PM
Hmmm. I specifically critical of Amazon's long list because most of the characters she posted pictures of were not human, and your response is to post more pictures of characters who aren't human (except maybe the third one wearing the mask, I can't tell if it's human, but nor can I tell if it's ugly).

Seriously, I am amazed at how hard it is for you to find a depiction of a human hero that is ugly.

I suspect that they are out there, but not in anywhere near the numbers that Amazon seemed to be suggesting.

This is a spectacularly bad-faith "argument" with no useful point at the end of it. We're talking about a narrow band of genres jammed with mutants, aliens, elves and demons. They're humanoids, they generally have pretty human personalities, are written and drawn by humans for human consumption, who all live in a society that is 100% human. This discussion was originally about armor for female characters not female humans, and those characters are pretty damn human-shaped outside of their frequently weird-ass spines. This is a pointless, useless nitpick. Also Ben Grimm is a human.

A more useful categorization than "human" would be individual lineups. 9 times out of 10, protagonist and antagonist women have a narrower range of acceptable body types and apparent age ranges. Look at the X-Men--female mutants do not vary in body shape or attractiveness as widely as male mutants. Look at Batman's rogues gallery. Look at the hero art for Hearthstone. Look at the agents of the BPRD. Look at Overwatch before Blizzard reacted to irritation over its lineup. And on and on.

Heroes of both sexes tend to be depicted as attractive. That doesn't come close to answering the obvious fact that there is a much, much stronger tendency for women with major roles to be conventionally attractive.

Anyway, here:
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-126ed1f073df8265b51cb3c24055a185
http://static.srcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/jonah-hex-josh-brolin-10-bad-movies-based-on-comics.jpg
https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/finalfantasy/images/b/b5/Adelbert_Steiner_character.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130321032140
https://resizing.flixster.com/oWLTgzwHxioWdEDtU6Ua1t6cccA=/206x305/v1.bTsxMTI5NTI2ODtqOzE3NTAwOzEyMDA7MjI4NjszMDQ4
http://www.nerdophiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/goodbye-3.png

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-03, 09:04 PM
I go with the idea, if it's making someone uncomfortable, change it.

If someone is not having a good time with that, change it.

Too bad if some people liked, it's unfair that some people are having a good time while others are unhappy.

Obviously you have to be reasonable, if itís an important concept or a core element you donít have to change it, that goes without saying.

I bet a lot of people hated when good changes were made, too bad they had to be done.

On the part about "making someone uncomfortable"... that's a box that belonged to Pandora, I'm afraid, no matter how well-intentioned one is in opening it.

I'd really prefer a standard for not objectifying that's more objective, to spin a phrase, and one that's not so wide-open to abuse by people who clearly aren't at all on your side of this... people who are "uncomfortable" with women being shown in pants, or with their faces exposed, or... you get the idea.

2D8HP
2017-08-03, 10:27 PM
Yeah, it goes both ways. Maybe Amazon and company are...


:confused:

Sorry Ashiel but I'm not following your argument.

I've enjoyed much of the art you posted, I don't understand why you can't emphasize with a plea of someone who just wants to be able to play a non-cheesecake PC in games where that option doesn't exist?

While it grinds my gears that when I look for male fantasy character illustrations I have to wade through so many images of scowling surly steroid abusers
http://orig07.deviantart.net/b682/f/2009/176/7/a/gladiator_by_jasson78.jpg
...but I'd be even more chafed if I could only get
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1a/4d/56/1a4d563ea4dcfcd5813c293384638e6e.jpg




feminazi



feminazi



feminazis .



feminazi



You're testing me!

I promised I would, but you didn't believe me!

WHY DIDN'T YOU BELIEVE ME?!




..especially since it went past Godwin's Law threshold..


New rule: Everytime Nazi's are mentioned in a thread, Kitler visits!


http://bcdn.sadanduseless.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/kitler20.jpg


There!

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-03, 10:31 PM
This is a spectacularly bad-faith "argument" with no useful point at the end of it. We're talking about a narrow band of genres jammed with mutants, aliens, elves and demons. They're humanoids, they generally have pretty human personalities, are written and drawn by humans for human consumption, who all live in a society that is 100% human. This discussion was originally about armor for female characters not female humans, and those characters are pretty damn human-shaped outside of their frequently weird-ass spines. This is a pointless, useless nitpick. Also Ben Grimm is a human.

A more useful categorization than "human" would be individual lineups. 9 times out of 10, protagonist and antagonist women have a narrower range of acceptable body types and apparent age ranges. Look at the X-Men--female mutants do not vary in body shape or attractiveness as widely as male mutants. Look at Batman's rogues gallery. Look at the hero art for Hearthstone. Look at the agents of the BPRD. Look at Overwatch before Blizzard reacted to irritation over its lineup. And on and on.

Heroes of both sexes tend to be depicted as attractive. That doesn't come close to answering the obvious fact that there is a much, much stronger tendency for women with major roles to be conventionally attractive.

Anyway, here:
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-126ed1f073df8265b51cb3c24055a185
http://static.srcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/jonah-hex-josh-brolin-10-bad-movies-based-on-comics.jpg
https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/finalfantasy/images/b/b5/Adelbert_Steiner_character.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130321032140
https://resizing.flixster.com/oWLTgzwHxioWdEDtU6Ua1t6cccA=/206x305/v1.bTsxMTI5NTI2ODtqOzE3NTAwOzEyMDA7MjI4NjszMDQ4
http://www.nerdophiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/goodbye-3.png



Thinking about this, I'm not sure the question of "attractiveness diversity" should be casually intermingled with the question of whether female characters are more often depicted in incongruously sexualized clothing and poses, useless but "fashionable" armor, etc.

Making it appear to be a choice between a certain kind of "attractiveness", or something else to "make up for the lack", gets into some of the unfortunate "you can be pretty or you can be something else I guess" cultural element that pops up in the aforementioned women's soccer, where you can see a clear ""pretty girls" don't play soccer in your country, do they?" split for some countries. Which isn't to say that female athletes should be judged based on their appearance, but rather to say that we can learn something about their home country's culture by that artificial split between "pretty girls" and "athletic girls".

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 12:37 AM
That's not a mask, its just his face.

Anyway, "being human" seems to be a fairly arbitrary measure, at least the way youre using it. The big blue guy is human, for example, he just doesn't look like a standard human. Ditto with the rock monster. Gimli, meanwhile, may not be human, but he looks close enough to have the same attractiveness standards apply to him. Hellboy is, admittedly, a demon (or something), and can thus look like whatever the artists want him to look like.

If its not a mask he is not human (or at least not a 'standard human' as you put the word).

I don't think being human is an arbitrary measure at all. I have no idea if Frodo and Bilbo are attractive or ugly by the standards of hobbits or Gimli by the standard of dwarfs. I'm afraid I don't recognise most of the other inhuman characters posted, but even if I did I would not know if they were considered attractive for their species.

Given that probably well in excess of 90% of characters are human, why is it so difficult to come up with human examples of heroic males who are ugly?

As for the rock monster and the big blue guy being human, I'm not sure what you mean by that, because they clearly do not have a human shape. Is it that they are humans who have been somehow magically polymorphed into something else (which again triggers the question of whether they are attractive by the species they have polymorphed into)? if so,I don't think it is too much of an amendment to my question about how hard it is to find some human male charactors who are ugly and heroic to say thta by human, I mean they must have human form.

I'm actully really surprised that it's been so hard for people to find human male heros that are ugly. I would have thought a bit of delving would find at least numerous (although a minority) human heros that are ugly of each of male and female, but perhaps they are rarer than I thought.

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 12:52 AM
It's kind of rude to point and call people names.

I'm not sure what you are talking about



Here we go:
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/7666/1103654-b001.jpg
http://www.yaytrend.com/images/570x363/comic-book-character-with-white-face-mask-3644134.png
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/0/3125/132607-18677-110306-1-jonah-hex.jpg
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-WCARJFSOvdM/VaMy6cNIk-I/AAAAAAAADTU/QU9MtdTPj24/s1600/bullseye.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/pt/2/2f/Apocalipse_por_Robert_Atkins.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/452644991010344960/nmpa6AYX.jpeg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/4e/67/8e/4e678e0d7b2427f9c7de807d4026281c--hulk--hulk-smash.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/Plastic_Man.jpg
http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2017/02/swamp-thing-v5-cvr.jpg
https://res.cloudinary.com/pvplive/image/upload/article_headers/SF-20161208-Akuma.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5f/Killer_Croc_%28Adewale_Akinnuoye-Agbaje%29.jpg/170px-Killer_Croc_%28Adewale_Akinnuoye-Agbaje%29.jpg
http://www.dccomics.com/sites/default/files/GalleryChar_1920x1080_3_SSQUAD_3_19_450_57a29124ba 97c3.39753136.jpg
http://mindlessones.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/league1969a.jpg
https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/marvel_dc/images/c/c4/Green_Lantern_Vol_5_1_Textless.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20110714034051

Do I need to go on?

Let's see how we go on someone's third attempt (and after about 20 misses) at finding a human male hero who is partcularly ugly.

I think that IamTrevor eliminated most by pointing out that they were not heroes but were rather villans.

Your response nominated some that you still think are heroes:

Juggernaut joined the x-man for a while now.
Bullseye was part of the avengers.
Captain boomerang and killer croc part of the suicide squad.
Sinestro part of the lanterns.

I googled each of them:
- The first line of the wikipedia entry on Juggernaut states "Juggernaut (Cain Marko) is a fictional supervillain appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics." I think that one fails the heroic part. Also, I don't think he particularly unattractive - his mask does not completely cover his face in the TV (non-animated) version.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/zE5KXlg4iUY/maxresdefault.jpg
- The first line of the wikipedia entry on Bullseye states "A psychopathic assassin, Bullseye uses the opportunities afforded by his line of work to exercise his homicidal tendencies and to work out his own personal vendetta against Daredevil." I think that one fails the heroic part.
- The first line of the wikipedia entry of Captain boonerang states "Captain Boomerang (George "Digger" Harkness) is a fictional supervillain appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics." So again, fails the heroic part
- The first line of the wikipedia entry of Captain boonerang states "Thaal Sinestro (/θɑːl sɪˈnɛstroʊ/) is a fictional supervillain appearing in American comic books published by DC Comics." So again, fails the heroic part

So, in answer to your question, yes you do need to go on. Or, more accurately, you need to get started. Remember the requirements aren't hard - human (in human form), hero and clearly ugly or unattractive.

Satinavian
2017-08-04, 01:14 AM
But I can't play a fighting game that uses medieval weapons as the main form of combat anywhere else, why should I reduce my amount of fun? Itís unfair.

It's like stop going to a park next to my house because it's badly preserved rather than fighting for it to improve.The best medieval weapon fighting games i have played so far were the Mount & Blade series. Sporting female player characters and varying body shapes from the onset. Yes, there is some lack in female generic mook enemies as most of the settings are historical, but even for that there are mods. An ensemble of fighting female NPCs are already in the unmodded game, so your characte does not feel very smurfettish. Clothing is reasonable for both genders.

It also significantly predates the last big controversy about female representation in games and thus clearly is not a reaction to it.

I am not sure which game you were complaining about, but "fighting game with medieval weapons" is a bad example for lack of alternatives to vote for with your wallet. Except if by "fighting game that uses medieval weapons" you meant one of those strange 2D Streetfighter things. Which is a subgenre i have no clue about whatsoever.

1337 b4k4
2017-08-04, 02:29 AM
Wow this thread continues to run away. No time to address everything, but two minor points:



You want to see how a real woman dress for a fighting a martial arts battle?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/61/09/e1/6109e17f66d3c6cb4f3415140fd6a00a--tae-kwon-do-kungfu.jpg

See? She is not naked, and her clothes are not too tight, that allows her to be agile and her movements to be accurate.


Counter point:

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2016-12-31/Getty/630706234.jpg&w=480

Real women, in real martial arts battle, less clothing than many of the prior-linked female video game and fantasy art combatants



Point the second:

I mentioned this much earlier in the thread, but since we're back to the general male/female divide in media as a whole again, could someone please provide the following:

A) A definition of a "sexualized male" in media
B) A definition of "male power fantasy"
C) A definition of A that is not overlapping with B

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 02:50 AM
This is a spectacularly bad-faith "argument" with no useful point at the end of it. We're talking about a narrow band of genres jammed with mutants, aliens, elves and demons. They're humanoids, they generally have pretty human personalities, are written and drawn by humans for human consumption, who all live in a society that is 100% human. This discussion was originally about armor for female characters not female humans, and those characters are pretty damn human-shaped outside of their frequently weird-ass spines. This is a pointless, useless nitpick. Also Ben Grimm is a human.

I wasn't aware we were addressing only a narrow band of genres. I saw a lot of people were posting animated/comic types, but certainyl not all (see Gimli/Frodo/Bilbo). I suppose that if we are talking about only a very narrow band where the majority is inhuman in some way I have to agree that making everyone human limits the discussion a bit. Could you perhaps clarify what genre you were referring to?


A more useful categorization than "human" would be individual lineups. 9 times out of 10, protagonist and antagonist women have a narrower range of acceptable body types and apparent age ranges. Look at the X-Men--female mutants do not vary in body shape or attractiveness as widely as male mutants. Look at Batman's rogues gallery. Look at the hero art for Hearthstone. Look at the agents of the BPRD. Look at Overwatch before Blizzard reacted to irritation over its lineup. And on and on.

Well you may see that as more useful for whatever broader point you are trying to make. But it is not what was being discussed - the point was made about heroic characters (so not antagonists etc). You can respond to that point by saying "yes there are plenty of heroic human males who are ugly", which is the tangent I am discussing or by saying "I don't think that classification is useful" which is not something I am well placed to discuss because I am not accross the history of the conversation between Ahsiel and Amazon and what underlying point each were making (which may be different to the point you are trying to make).


Heroes of both sexes tend to be depicted as attractive. That doesn't come close to answering the obvious fact that there is a much, much stronger tendency for women with major roles to be conventionally attractive.

Well, so far it seems to be a bit stronger than a tendency. So far it seems that human heroic characters are near uniformally depicted as attractive. I imagine someone will come up with some counter-examples soon.



Anyway, here:
https://qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-126ed1f073df8265b51cb3c24055a185
http://static.srcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/jonah-hex-josh-brolin-10-bad-movies-based-on-comics.jpg
https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/finalfantasy/images/b/b5/Adelbert_Steiner_character.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130321032140
https://resizing.flixster.com/oWLTgzwHxioWdEDtU6Ua1t6cccA=/206x305/v1.bTsxMTI5NTI2ODtqOzE3NTAwOzEyMDA7MjI4NjszMDQ4
http://www.nerdophiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/goodbye-3.png



I guess whether Jonah Hex qualifies depends on how widely you define hero or heroic character. I must admit to not knowing much about him. If you say he qualifies I will take your word for it.

I'm not sure the knight qualifies as obviously ugly, although I will concede that he is not obviously good looking.

Quasimodo is an interesting one because one of the main points of his story is that his ugliness sets him apart from the typical male hero. Although I agree that he definitely qualifies, I think he actually goes against the spirit of the question.

I'm afraid I don't recognise the other two, so cannot comment.

Fair play though, you have identified at least one (perhaps more). I do suggest though, that the fact it took four attempts (by different people) and that the ones you have used are not quite clear cut, and not that high profile, suggests that ugly male human male heros are pretty rare too.

To put up a female example - Ayane Anno from Gold Digger comic. Her description on the webpage notes:
"Despite her harsh appearance, it's at least partially show, and though she doesn't mind being thought of as cool and badass, Ayane has a secret (or not-so-secret, but rarely believed) desire to be 'cute'."
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/ayane-anno/4005-61837/

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 03:41 AM
Is "must be a hero" even a legitimate constraint?

It seems to me that the divergence between the depictions of male villains and female villains is perhaps even greater.


(In general, I do think it's kinda telling how much of this has now come down to "that example doesn't count because some random reason I just made up".)

Sorry I missed this earlier.

I think you mischaractorise me by saying "some random reason I just made up". The only criteria I suggested was that the character be human. The reason is not random, but as I said in an earlier post, because who knows what is considered attractive in the various other races depicted (is Frodo attractive by Hobbit standards)?

As for hero as a constraint, that was the premise first being discussed between Ashiel and Amazon. Whether it was legitimate depends on what precisely (not, what generally) their point was. I didn't go back and check, I just wanted to point out that Amazon's counter-examples were not (in my opinion) valid. I can guess it had something to do with whether its possible for an unattractive male/female to be portrayed positevely, with 'hero' standing in proxy for 'positive portrayal'.

As for unattractive depictions of villians - i am happy to look into it with you. But first, I want to be clear about what the point you are trying to demonstrate is. Because I can conceive of a person trying to argue either of the following from a feminist perspective:
- Female villians should not be unattractive (or at least not to a greater degree that unattractive female heroes) because that suggests that a woman who is unattractive is not someone who should be accepted.
- Female villians should be unattractive on at least some occassions to better reflect the fact that women come in lots of shapes, sizes and degree of attractiveness.

I think your point is the second, but I'd be grateful if you'd confirm before we go any further.

Amazon
2017-08-04, 04:00 AM
On the part about "making someone uncomfortable"... that's a box that belonged to Pandora, I'm afraid, no matter how well-intentioned one is in opening it.

I'd really prefer a standard for not objectifying that's more objective, to spin a phrase, and one that's not so wide-open to abuse by people who clearly aren't at all on your side of this... people who are "uncomfortable" with women being shown in pants, or with their faces exposed, or... you get the idea.

I agree that was a naive idea.

I just want to point out that I never said that someone who enjoy any form of media is sexist, only the media. hate the game not the player

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 04:15 AM
I agree that was a naive idea.

I just want to point out that I never said that someone who enjoy any form of media is sexist, only the media. hate the game not the player

Do you hate the fact that media with sexualised depictions of women exist? Or do you only hate it that media that does not include sexualised depictions of women does not exist (in your perception)?

In other words, would you be ok with it if some MMORPGs generally depcited women as attractive and in revealing outfits so that people who like seeing that can play it, so long as there were other options where MMORPGs do not depict women as generally revealingly dressed so thatyou and like minded people can play it?

Satinavian
2017-08-04, 04:25 AM
As for unattractive depictions of villians - i am happy to look into it with you. But first, I want to be clear about what the point you are trying to demonstrate is. Because I can conceive of a person trying to argue either of the following from a feminist perspective:
- Female villians should not be unattractive (or at least not to a greater degree that unattractive female heroes) because that suggests that a woman who is unattractive is not someone who should be accepted.
- Female villians should be unattractive on at least some occassions to better reflect the fact that women come in lots of shapes, sizes and degree of attractiveness.

I think your point is the second, but I'd be grateful if you'd confirm before we go any further.I think there is some sexism at play with villian depictions.

But i don't think it is "female villians tend to be sexualized and attractive while male villians get to be of any body shape", it is more the kind of "We want to intruce that repulsive monster villian who is also suppossed to get into melee fights with the hero(es) and/or is basically a brawler. And we don't want our hero beating women up, so the monster gets to be male."

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 04:31 AM
I think there is some sexism at play with villian depictions.

But i don't think it is "female villians tend to be sexualized and attractive while male villians get to be of any body shape", it is more the kind of "We want to intruce that repulsive monster villian who is also suppossed to get into melee fights with the hero(es) and/or is basically a brawler. And we don't want our hero beating women up, so the monster gets to be male."

I agree with you on this.

Floret
2017-08-04, 04:43 AM
https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_960w/2010-2019/Wires/Images/2016-12-31/Getty/630706234.jpg&w=480

Real women, in real martial arts battle, less clothing than many of the prior-linked female video game and fantasy art combatants

Granted. The "Fighters will be fully covered" statement was indeed an oversimplification (though not mine). But they don't look like the characters pointed out as bad examples either, do they? Shorts, and Sportsbras; no millimeter of cleavage shown, nor of naked butt visible. Those women superficially might show more skin by square centimeter, but they show very different parts of skin.


Point the second:

I mentioned this much earlier in the thread, but since we're back to the general male/female divide in media as a whole again, could someone please provide the following:

A) A definition of a "sexualized male" in media
B) A definition of "male power fantasy"
C) A definition of A that is not overlapping with B

A) A male character that looks and behaves in a way to appeal to women who want to be with him (I say women, largely because if this happens, it mostly is about straight women's tastes, that might overlap with bi women's tastes, but tends to differ from gay/bi men's tastes.). A character that exemplifies what culture connotates with what women find attractive in men. A character that is primarily goodlooking, designed to be ogled, one that makes you feel good while looking at him, and imagining being with him.
B) A male character that looks (or plays) in a way to appeal to men who want to be (like) him. A character that exemplifies what culture connotates with the epitome of manlyness. A character that is strong, capable, and quite possibly looks like what men think women find attractive, one that makes you feel some of those (especially strong) while playing him or imagining to be him.
And, maybe as an example, two magazine covers depicting hugh Jackman. One a men's magazine (http://cdn1.the-orbit.net/lousycanuck/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/08/tumblr_mr6g6w4krK1r2tsi5o1_1280.jpg), one a women's magazine (http://cdn1.the-orbit.net/lousycanuck/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2013/08/tumblr_mr6g6w4krK1r2tsi5o2_1280.jpg). While I wouldn't say he is sexualized (though tight clothing, posing and facial expression probably aren't an accident), there is a very clear gulf in what is done in marketing with the same person to men (as a power Fantasy) and women (as an object of attraction, albeit a non-sexualised one.)


I wasn't aware we were addressing only a narrow band of genres. I saw a lot of people were posting animated/comic types, but certainyl not all (see Gimli/Frodo/Bilbo). I suppose that if we are talking about only a very narrow band where the majority is inhuman in some way I have to agree that making everyone human limits the discussion a bit. Could you perhaps clarify what genre you were referring to?

We are talking mostly about Nerdgenres - Fantasy, Sci-Fi and Superheros. Those genres do have vast numbers of non-humans (And humans that don't look the part; see Beast and Ben Grimm).
And I find the point, especially in regards to Hobbits and Gimli to be somewhat dishonest as well. They are humanoids, specifically constructed to look relatively human (And, played by humans in Live-action to boot, without much mask). I mean, noone would argue elves to fall under the theoretical spectrum of human attraction? I have heard from some Fantasy-loving bears (The gay culture definition, not the animal) that they quite like dwarves, and I can see why that would fit together. As was pointed out, in Star Wars, Twi'lek, despite clearly not human have a very large following of humans attracted to them - they are human enough for that.
Certainly, "humans, but smaller and more bearded" or "human, but strangely coloured with two tentacles instead of hair" aren't TECHNICALLY human, but they might really as well be.


To put up a female example - Ayane Anno from Gold Digger comic. Her description on the webpage notes:
"Despite her harsh appearance, it's at least partially show, and though she doesn't mind being thought of as cool and badass, Ayane has a secret (or not-so-secret, but rarely believed) desire to be 'cute'."
https://comicvine.gamespot.com/ayane-anno/4005-61837/

She? As an example of an ugly female heroine? I mean, the text might be readable as that (Though I would argue the "harsh" is more concerned with personality than attractiveness). But in a visual medium, statements on the character's looks mean jack**** when not qualified by the art. And, seriously, this is not an unattractive woman.
A very sexualised woman, certainly - the outfit is complete bogus, and only gets by without cleavage through showing EVERYTHING ELSE. I must admit, showing the abs might even be good for characterisation, but wearing normal pants might fit better, if the goal is "strong female fighter" and not "muscular lingerine model".
One could even argue, from her description, if she fits the definition of "hero" - while maybe not villain, it doesn't read as a hero to me.

(Also, as for the characters you cannot identify, the first one is Rorschach from Watchmen - certainly a hero; as much so as the setting permits for them.)

Frozen_Feet
2017-08-04, 05:05 AM
You want to see how a real woman dress for a fighting a martial arts battle?

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/61/09/e1/6109e17f66d3c6cb4f3415140fd6a00a--tae-kwon-do-kungfu.jpg

See? She is not naked, and her clothes are not too tight, that allows her to be agile and her movements to be accurate.

Hahaha.

You using keikogi as an example of a battle outfit. Hilarious.

Reasons are simple. First, it's not a battle outfit. It's a sports outfit made for training and non-lethal combat.

Second, it'd basically white pajamas.

Short history lesson: this particular style of garb started as just normal clothes in Japan. Specifically, underwear. Ordinarily, you're supposed to wear at least proper pants (hakama) over it, like is still done in Kendo, Aikido etc.

However, during and after World War 2, there was shortage of everything. So some people could not afford proper pants. So they asked "sensei, can I train in just my underwear?" And senseis okayed it... for men. Women still had to wear pants, because it was considered simply indecent for them to prance around in mere underwear!

For some reason, the habit stuck. One reason was probably because non-colored plain shirt and pants were the cheapest possible training outfit, it's what you could realistically expect everyone to get for sports which are hard on clothes. Also served to erase economic classes in the dojo, putting everyone on the level.

But anyways: the lesson is that that lady pretty much is naked, for certain social definition of nakedness. The same applies to the MMA fighters another person posted. The reason is simple: for physically demanding athletic effort, you want to wear as little as you can get away with. It applies to all sports. Or do you see track & fielders in heavy clothing? Or marathon runners? Even winter sports trend toward form-fitting suit.

The only exceptions are heavy duty contact sports, such as ice hockey, american football, kendo etc.. Ice hockey or kendo gear are much closer to actual battle gear than keikogi.

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 06:27 AM
:confused:

Sorry Ashiel but I'm not following your argument.

I've enjoyed much of the art you posted, I don't understand why you can't emphasize with a plea of someone who just wants to be able to play a non-cheesecake PC in games where that option doesn't exist?
It might not have been clear since I quoted someone who had quoted someone else (and so the original quote was removed for brevity by the forums), but the post went like this.

I go with the idea, if it's making someone uncomfortable, change it.

If someone is not having a good time with that, change it.

Too bad if some people liked, it's unfair that some people are having a good time while others are unhappy.

Obviously you have to be reasonable, if itís an important concept or a core element you donít have to change it, that goes without saying.

I bet a lot of people hated when good changes were made, too bad they had to be done.
My post said:

Yeah, it goes both ways. Maybe Amazon and company are making others feel uncomfortable, and thus should change. Except, I would hazard to guess, that wouldn't be acceptable because to them they're the "good guys" making the "right choices".

Which, for the umpteenth time...
A. Aesthetic preferences.
B. Moral indignation.
C. All of the above.

Pick one.
See, Amazon's only concerned about certain people being uncomfortable for certain things due to Amazon's personal moral indignation. It's actually quite irrelevant who or how uncomfortable it makes people by trying to change things that others enjoy to suit their personal preferences, because to them, they're doing the "right" thing and the others are "wrong" or "bad" for being made uncomfortable by the hostility towards things they like.

I mean, she sees it as unfair that some are having fun but not others, so her solution is to change what those having fun like so that those who didn't like it now do, even if the others liked it before. As I noted before, this would be like saying that Mortal Kombat is too violent, demanding that fatalities and blood be removed from the game to make it less uncomfortable for people who don't like Mortal Kombat, even if those are things that make the current fans like Mortal Kombat.

It's quite asinine. It's impractical, short sighted, and comes off as very hostile. It's also pointless, given that there are tons of games and if one game doesn't appeal to you, you have a buffet line of other games to choose from. Likewise, many times the complaint extends to the inclusion of anything that offends their moral sensibilities.

Here's an example. Back on the Paizo boards, in I think 2014 or maybe 2013 (it's been a while), there was an argument over video games and their depictions of women. When Final Fantasy VII was mentioned, lots of the "omg, vidja gaemes is hostile to the wee-mons" crowd complained about Tifa Lockheart. Because she had boobs. Big boobs. Like big boobs are somehow not something that actually happens (incidentally, I've met women who have a figure like Tifas, one of which actually makes Tifa's boobs look small by comparison without implants. My sister used to work out with her all the time).

So what's the cast of Final Fantasy VII look like?
https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/finalfantasy/images/6/6e/FFVII_Playable_Characters.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20140624023215
You've got Aeris, Tifa, and Yuffi. Each of them have different builds, different kinds of outfits, and different heights, and well pretty much different everything. But they were insistent FF7 was bad because Tifa had larger than average breasts (hint: there's a funny thing about averages). The only people during that conversation that saw Tifa as a pair of tits and nothing more were the moral indignants. The rest of us could sit there and recite facts about her personality, her accomplishments, her dark moments, her ultimate weapon, her limit breaks, her reasons for becoming a hero, her literally rescuing Cloud both mentally and physically, etc.

Keep in mind I also said:

Well, see, your idea of something improving doesn't necessarily mesh with someone else's idea of something improving. For example, you (or was it someone else) linked Rainbow Mika as an example of a character that's "wrong". Except, my brother's girlfriend loved Rainbow Mika. She was upset when Capcom decided to change the camera motions to hide her sassy spank during her super in the US release.

I'm more of a live and let live sort. I think you're both right, and both wrong. Kind of a yin and yang. You want to suggest some art you prefer? Go for it. You want to say "This makes me a bit uncomfortable", that's fine too. However, what I typically see (including in this thread) is condemnation and explicit declarations of "wrongness" based on peoples A) aesthetic preferences, or B) their moral preferences, which are not universal and to condemn these things is to tread upon the rights of others to enjoy those things.

So, in the same way that I rebuked idiots like Jack Thompson or Patricia Pulling, I'll go on rebuking anyone else who follows in their footsteps. We could all sit, hold hands, sing songs and share art. We could agree to like what we like, and influence the world through spreading what we enjoy. Or we can continue as we are doing, with nobody really giving any inches and everyone getting progressively more and more distant from one another, digging trenches.

I'm sitting on the fence, you see. I've no particular preference for the art one way or the other, so I'm naturally going to bite at whomever is invading over the fence. If it was the "We like the sexy" people trying to bash on the art you guys like, I'd be on your side instead. Of course, the only aggressors I've seen have been those who are morally outraged or trying to profess their aesthetic preference as the one true way.

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 06:34 AM
I agree that was a naive idea.

I just want to point out that I never said that someone who enjoy any form of media is sexist, only the media. hate the game not the player

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdb8UC9_fMw

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 06:43 AM
Short history lesson: this particular style of garb started as just normal clothes in Japan. Specifically, underwear. Ordinarily, you're supposed to wear at least proper pants (hakama) over it, like is still done in Kendo, Aikido etc.
Wow, you learn something new every day. :smallsmile:
https://media.giphy.com/media/3og0IMJcSI8p6hYQXS/giphy.gif

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-04, 06:47 AM
Sorry I missed this earlier.

I think you mischaractorise me by saying "some random reason I just made up". The only criteria I suggested was that the character be human. The reason is not random, but as I said in an earlier post, because who knows what is considered attractive in the various other races depicted (is Frodo attractive by Hobbit standards)?


I wasn't even thinking of your posts when I wrote that.




As for hero as a constraint, that was the premise first being discussed between Ashiel and Amazon. Whether it was legitimate depends on what precisely (not, what generally) their point was. I didn't go back and check, I just wanted to point out that Amazon's counter-examples were not (in my opinion) valid. I can guess it had something to do with whether its possible for an unattractive male/female to be portrayed positevely, with 'hero' standing in proxy for 'positive portrayal'.


Positive portrayal or not, "unattractive" characters in visual media tend to be overwhelmingly male. If a female character is portrayed, she is very likely to be in some way "attractive".




As for unattractive depictions of villians - i am happy to look into it with you. But first, I want to be clear about what the point you are trying to demonstrate is. Because I can conceive of a person trying to argue either of the following from a feminist perspective:
- Female villians should not be unattractive (or at least not to a greater degree that unattractive female heroes) because that suggests that a woman who is unattractive is not someone who should be accepted.
- Female villians should be unattractive on at least some occassions to better reflect the fact that women come in lots of shapes, sizes and degree of attractiveness.

I think your point is the second, but I'd be grateful if you'd confirm before we go any further.


I wasn't trying to make a "should" point, I was making an observation.

Orcus The Vile
2017-08-04, 06:52 AM
I mean, she sees it as unfair that some are having fun but not others, so her solution is to change what those having fun like so that those who didn't like it now do, even if the others liked it before. As I noted before, this would be like saying that Mortal Kombat is too violent, demanding that fatalities and blood be removed from the game to make it less uncomfortable for people who don't like Mortal Kombat, even if those are things that make the current fans like Mortal Kombat.

However, She did say that the core element of the game needs to be preserved and is free from change.

I think it's safe to asume that extreme levels of violence is the core element of MK have ALL the female characters dress as strippers is not.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-04, 06:55 AM
:confused:

Sorry Ashiel but I'm not following your argument.

I've enjoyed much of the art you posted, I don't understand why you can't emphasize with a plea of someone who just wants to be able to play a non-cheesecake PC in games where that option doesn't exist?

While it grinds my gears that when I look for male fantasy character illustrations I have to wade through so many images of scowling surly steroid abusers
...but I'd be even more chafed if I could only get



"I'd like more options for non-sexualized / non-pinup female characters in games and game art".

"Treat visual character depictions the same regardless of whether the character is male or female."

"Don't pander and objectify."


They seem like simple requests to me, and yet they generate such an firestorm of backlash.

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 07:05 AM
We are talking mostly about Nerdgenres - Fantasy, Sci-Fi and Superheros. Those genres do have vast numbers of non-humans (And humans that don't look the part; see Beast and Ben Grimm).
And I find the point, especially in regards to Hobbits and Gimli to be somewhat dishonest as well. They are humanoids, specifically constructed to look relatively human (And, played by humans in Live-action to boot, without much mask). I mean, noone would argue elves to fall under the theoretical spectrum of human attraction? I have heard from some Fantasy-loving bears (The gay culture definition, not the animal) that they quite like dwarves, and I can see why that would fit together. As was pointed out, in Star Wars, Twi'lek, despite clearly not human have a very large following of humans attracted to them - they are human enough for that.
Certainly, "humans, but smaller and more bearded" or "human, but strangely coloured with two tentacles instead of hair" aren't TECHNICALLY human, but they might really as well be.


Regarding genres, are we. I didn't see that specified.

Anyway, even within those three genres, there are literlly thousands of human characters. If there is so much trouble (that it took four attempts and about 30 examples) to identify a singly human heroic male who is clearly ugly, I think clearly demonstrates that human males are only rarely deomstrated as ugly.

As to Hobbits and Gimli, I wonder if he word "dishonest" is a bit strong, when you merely disagree with me - I mean did I lie to you? While Elves may be sexually attractive to humans, I think that dwarves (other than the fetishes you mention), hobbits, foxes, creatures that look like rocks etc are clearly not. My point is that they are not unttractive by the standards of their own speicies.

Is Simba (from the lion king) a good example of an unattractive male, and Nala an example of an unnattractive female because neither (one would hope) is attractive to humans (both being animals)? I think that that is not what is meant for the purposes of this discusison, both might be attractive by the standards of lions - and that is what matters for the movie.


She? As an example of an ugly female heroine? I mean, the text might be readable as that (Though I would argue the "harsh" is more concerned with personality than attractiveness). But in a visual medium, statements on the character's looks mean jack**** when not qualified by the art. And, seriously, this is not an unattractive woman.
A very sexualised woman, certainly - the outfit is complete bogus, and only gets by without cleavage through showing EVERYTHING ELSE. I must admit, showing the abs might even be good for characterisation, but wearing normal pants might fit better, if the goal is "strong female fighter" and not "muscular lingerine model".
One could even argue, from her description, if she fits the definition of "hero" - while maybe not villain, it doesn't read as a hero to me.
https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=ayane+anno&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijzLn5wb3VAhWBrJQKHS_vC6sQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=971#imgrc=P-bP5AnUhw5_2M:

I suppose attractiveness is always subjective. The text does confirm that the caracter is at least intended to be unattracitve. I thinkshe is as unttractive as any of the men identified by mendicant (all of whom are either muscular or slim, so have good bodies like Ayane, even if their faces are open to interpretation).

Whether she is sexualised, or her outfit is bogus is a different point to whether sheis attractive or not. If your point is about sexualisation of women, instead of whether women are sometimes depicted as less than attractive, that is a seperate argument (which I think is also happening in this thread)..

Her description suggest hero to me - no negative points (apart from her appearance).


(Also, as for the characters you cannot identify, the first one is Rorschach from Watchmen - certainly a hero; as much so as the setting permits for them.)

Rorschach is identifed as an "anit-hero" on wikipedia, and anti hero is defined as aprotagonist who lacks heoric qualities. I suggest that one of the heroic qualities he lacks is looks (like ayane). However, I think he qualifies and is probably the best example yet (it took four attempts). Thank you for identifying him.

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 07:13 AM
I wasn't even thinking of your posts when I wrote that.
Ok


Positive portrayal or not, "unattractive" characters in visual media tend to be overwhelmingly male. If a female character is portrayed, she is very likely to be in some way "attractive".

Well that is thr point under discussion between me and severla others. And it appears, at least when it comes to heroic humans, portrayal of unattractive males (i accept females as well) tends to be pretty rare.

Anyway, I think the line of discussion was about positive portrayals, perhaps because negativ protrayals may have different implications. As noted, the line of discussion originated between Ashial and Amazon, I only chimed in with respect to a post that I thought was deficient, and have now been caught up in defending that post of mine.


I wasn't trying to make a "should" point, I was making an observation.
Ok. I'm not sure if I agree with your obsevation. But before going into it, I would prefer to know how you think it relates to the discussion as a whole.

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 07:23 AM
However, She did say that the core element of the game needs to be preserved and is free from change.

I think it's safe to asume that extreme levels of violence is the core element of MK have ALL the female characters dress as strippers is not.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8d/38/fb/8d38fb1b539af41cb939a110c2421e52--camp-outfits-cool-cosplay.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z0AxiVDEpPg/hqdefault.jpg
https://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters/ashrah.jpg
https://ugc.kn3.net/i/origin/http://www.therobotspajamas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/frost.png
It's not enough for the moral indignants to have aspects that appeal to multiple aesthetics in the same game, only their preference. Everyone else is wrong. They're somehow corrupting the society (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThinkOfTheChildren) with their preferences. The usual spiel.

I have no sympathy left for that position.

EDIT: I mean, take an audit of which side of this conversation has been actively hostile. Go back and look. At worst I've been cheeky, or poked fun at bad arguments. The moral indignants jumped strait to getting dirty as soon as their position met with resistance or challenge, rapidly escalating to name calling and various fallacious appeals (including but not limited to ad hominems, slippery slope fallacy, and appeals to emotion), and choosing to not view posts that are contrary to their own (in the case of Max).

Tobtor
2017-08-04, 07:28 AM
As to Hobbits and Gimli, I wonder if he word "dishonest" is a bit strong, when you merely disagree with me - I mean did I lie to you? While Elves may be sexually attractive to humans, I think that dwarves (other than the fetishes you mention), hobbits, foxes, creatures that look like rocks etc are clearly not. My point is that they are not unttractive by the standards of their own speicies.


But the point is you often see males of "unattractive" "races" while females are often Elves or fairies or similar. As the audience is human, it is clear that females are still made to be attractive as their main characterisitc, while men can be attractive, strong, clever, a tragic misunderstood creature (hunchback from Notre dame) or any other number of things. People are not arguing that there shoul not be attractive female heroes. But that women should be treated just like men. That is if it makes sense for them to be attractive, by all means let them be. But when they are out adventrueing DO NOT have them where stilletto heels (invented in the 20th century by the way, they appear far too often in stories of the past).

Yes the point stands out clearer for antagonist (the latest Bewulf movie is a good example:

Male monster: http://www.writeups.org/wp-content/uploads/Grendel-2007-Beowulf-movie-Crispin-Glover-d.jpg

female monster:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fm5E_qMkav4/maxresdefault.jpg

complete with "stilletto heels"!

The second point is that famles are always (or at leats very frequently) "dressed" to be sexy, while the men are dressed to be competent at what they do!

I don't mind women in no clothing. If we have a culture where everyone fights nude, then both men and women should do so (instead media will often have women in something that looks like a bikini). If we have a culture where people fight in armour, then both men and women should wear armour (instead media will often have women in something that looks like a bikini). It shouldn't be that hard.

kraftcheese
2017-08-04, 07:31 AM
As to Hobbits and Gimli, I wonder if he word "dishonest" is a bit strong, when you merely disagree with me - I mean did I lie to you? While Elves may be sexually attractive to humans, I think that dwarves (other than the fetishes you mention), hobbits, foxes, creatures that look like rocks etc are clearly not. My point is that they are not unttractive by the standards of their own speicies.

Is Simba (from the lion king) a good example of an unattractive male, and Nala an example of an unnattractive female because neither (one would hope) is attractive to humans (both being animals)?
You keep trying to make this point, but it doesn't make sense; it doesn't matter whether the characters are attractive within the story, or to other hobbits, etc. because they're characters that have been created by human beings (or actors picked by humans) in media for consumption by humans.

It's the same problem as when people say "It's *female character*'s choice to dress this way; why's it ok for women to dress like that irl but not in media?"; the characters aren't real people making their own decisions, they're characters in media with a creator and an audience.

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 07:34 AM
But the point is you often see males of "unattractive" "races" while females are often Elves or fairies or similar. As the audience is human, it is clear that females are still made to be attractive as their main characterisitc, while men can be attractive, strong, clever, a tragic misunderstood creature (hunchback from Notre dame) or any other number of things. People are not arguing that there shoul not be attractive female heroes. But that women should be treated just like men. That is if it makes sense for them to be attractive, by all means let them be. But when they are out adventrueing DO NOT have them where stilletto heels (invented in the 20th century by the way, they appear far too often in stories of the past).
Hmmm... you've given me something to think about. Stay tuned.

Floret
2017-08-04, 07:35 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdb8UC9_fMw

While the rhetoric, as applied in the comments adressed in the video, is indeed really, really skeevy and questionable, simply replacing words can heavily change the context. For the critique of the "love the sinner, hate the sin" rhetoric to apply here, sexism and homosexuality would have to be equal in some form. And... I just don't think they are.
Sure, sexism, too, is not a distinct action/sin, but a set of beliefs (or a subset of a larger set, most people aren't sexist in all the ways it is possible to be sexist in). But on the contrasting side, it isn't an ingrained part of a person; but just that: a set of beliefs. To equate the two is such a way is, I think, not something you can do. And with that equation falls the equation of arguments.


Regarding genres, are we. I didn't see that specified.

Anyway, even within those three genres, there are literlly thousands of human characters. If there is so much trouble (that it took four attempts and about 30 examples) to identify a singly human heroic male who is clearly ugly, I think clearly demonstrates that human males are only rarely deomstrated as ugly.

As to Hobbits and Gimli, I wonder if he word "dishonest" is a bit strong, when you merely disagree with me - I mean did I lie to you? While Elves may be sexually attractive to humans, I think that dwarves (other than the fetishes you mention), hobbits, foxes, creatures that look like rocks etc are clearly not. My point is that they are not unttractive by the standards of their own speicies.

Is Simba (from the lion king) a good example of an unattractive male, and Nala an example of an unnattractive female because neither (one would hope) is attractive to humans (both being animals)? I think that that is not what is meant for the purposes of this discusison, both might be attractive by the standards of lions - and that is what matters for the movie.

Well, it wasn't specified, but really, looking at what is being discussed and in this forum? It was what was being talked about.
The fact argued wasn't "there are loads of them" but "there are some, while there are pretty much no female variants". Noone claimed ugly heroes to be in any way near the majority.
As for "not unattractive by the standards of their own species"... That doesn't MATTER. Because that is made up. The viewers aren't of that species. We all aren't of that species, that species does not exist, their culture, their spectrums of attraction do all not exist. Someone made that up, and invented the rules; but real-life reception of these doesn't work by those rules. It works by the rules of attraction of real-life human people. What a made-up culture thinks is attractive is wholly constructed, and irrelevant to the discussion of real-life media depictions and their impact.
I, as a human, real person, am not judging the attractiveness of Twi'lek by their own societies standards, but by real-life human standards, just as any one of us does (Likewise with dwarves, hobbits, elves, orcs, etc.). The sexualised Asari of Mass Effect aren't sexualised because of their own culture, they are sexualised by a human being that drew them to be attractive to human beings, wholly unrelated to any cultural beauty standards that same (or any other person) made up for the corresponding culture. The impact of sexualisation is not due to them being attractive by those made-up standards, but due to them being attractive by real-world ones.

And I find the argument to be somewhat in bad faith, at least. I mean, seriously, to take "human" so literally as to completely exclude and disregard even the most human-looking humanoids is really, really stretching believability as to being anything more than an arbitrary criteria to exclude given examples. Crash bandicoot (The fox guy)? Yeah, that one doesn't count. The thing (Rock thing) actually IS technically human, only mutated, but sure, that might throw him out of bounds. But Gimli? The hobbits? Characters where there are actively real-life people/Actors that are being called unattractive? C'mon...
(And Rorschach was at the very least in the second or third set of characters as well, just never commented on)



https://www.google.co.nz/search?q=ayane+anno&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwijzLn5wb3VAhWBrJQKHS_vC6sQ_AUICigB&biw=1920&bih=971#imgrc=P-bP5AnUhw5_2M

I suppose attractiveness is always subjective. The text does confirm that the caracter is at least intended to be unattracitve. I thinkshe is as unttractive as any of the men identified by mendicant (all of whom are either muscular or slim, so have good bodies like Ayane, even if their faces are open to interpretation).

Whether she is sexualised, or her outfit is bogus is a different point to whether sheis attractive or not. If your point is about sexualisation of women, instead of whether women are sometimes depicted as less than attractive, that is a seperate argument (which I think is also happening in this thread)..

Her description suggest hero to me - no negative points (apart from her appearance).

Rorschach is identifed as an "anit-hero" on wikipedia, and anti hero is defined as aprotagonist who lacks heoric qualities. I suggest that one of the heroic qualities he lacks is looks (like ayane). However, I think he qualifies and is probably the best example yet (it took four attempts). Thank you for identifying him.

Does the text confirm that? Where? As I said, the statement you quoted sets her apart from being attractive in the "cute" variety, but that is far from the only version in existance. Her being of the "hard, unyielding, cold beauty" (or, "harsh") variety does not stop her from being attractive.
She is, in any case, far, FAR from being similar to Rorschach in attractiveness; or any of the other characters. Sure, subjective and all, but come the **** on, unambiguously UGLY she ain't. (Also, fixed that link for you, you added a : at the end that was too much)

Since the thread is about depiction of female clothing first and foremost, and depiction of female characters in general as a tangent, I thought it was relevant to the thread topic. For her being attractive, it is dubiously relevant, though characters intended to be ugly aren't generally sexualised; and if so, as a joke (see for example deadpool in Jean Grey's old uniform (http://i.imgur.com/PzLxC23.jpg)), which this really doesn't seem to be.

No problem for identifying Rorschach, though I must point out he was in at least one of the earlier bunches of pics before the last one as well. So no, not four tries ;)

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-04, 07:35 AM
It's the same problem as when people say "It's *female character*'s choice to dress this way; why's it ok for women to dress like that irl but not in media?"; the characters aren't real people making their own decisions, they're characters in media with a creator and an audience.


And even if we take the "character's choice" thing as acceptable, what do we make of "choices" that are blatantly incongruous with the character and the situation and the context... but just "happen" to be highly sexualized?

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 07:37 AM
It's the same problem as when people say "It's *female character*'s choice to dress this way; why's it ok for women to dress like that irl but not in media?"; the characters aren't real people making their own decisions, they're characters in media with a creator and an audience.
What is your point here? Elaborate, please.

Floret
2017-08-04, 07:40 AM
What is your point here? Elaborate, please.

The point here (If I may, this is not a discussion being held for the first time) is that, no, it is not the character's decision to dress that way. It can't be, the character isn't real, she can't MAKE decisions, instead those are made FOR her, by the artists, developers, writers.
So if a team of artists decide a bunch of female characters to be dressed that way, it really isn't in any way equivalent to a woman dressing that way by her own choice - because the choice isn't made by the woman in question (That, again, cannot make one in the first place due to the whole "not existing" thing.)

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 07:47 AM
The point here (If I may, this is not a discussion being held for the first time) is that, no, it is not the character's decision to dress that way. It can't be, the character isn't real, she can't MAKE decisions, instead those are made FOR her, by the artists, developers, writers.
So if a team of artists decide a bunch of female characters to be dressed that way, it really isn't in any way equivalent to a woman dressing that way by her own choice - because the choice isn't made by the woman in question (That, again, cannot make one in the first place due to the whole "not existing" thing.)

So what you're saying is it doesn't matter. Because it's not a real person.

Further, you must admit that the creation of the character, from physical design to personality is solely the discretion of the creator. Ergo, the creator deems that she does so by choice. So she does so by choice. In the same way that if the creator decides she is not above killing a bad guy, she is not above killing a bad guy. Or that she likes kittens, so she likes kittens. Nobody is subjecting any sort of being to something against their will. The fact that some women actively choose to dress in such ways in life only further demonstrates the problem with that idea, since you can't even say it's particularly unrealistic, aside from possibly making an argument that it is exaggerated - which art regularly does with the real.

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 07:59 AM
But the point is you often see males of "unattractive" "races" while females are often Elves or fairies or similar. As the audience is human, it is clear that females are still made to be attractive as their main characterisitc, while men can be attractive, strong, clever, a tragic misunderstood creature (hunchback from Notre dame) or any other number of things. People are not arguing that there shoul not be attractive female heroes. But that women should be treated just like men. That is if it makes sense for them to be attractive, by all means let them be. But when they are out adventrueing DO NOT have them where stilletto heels (invented in the 20th century by the way, they appear far too often in stories of the past).

Whether they have stilletto heels or not is partof a different argument altogehter.

Do you more often see protagonists from unattactive races, or are you just promoting Tolkien as being representative as what is usual (remembering that his medium is books, where we get no visual depictions of a characters beauty, it's only later works that visually represent his work).

In dnd 3.5 canon core, you get three charactes of the races perhaps percieved as unttracitve (Tordek the dwarf fighter, Nebin the ilussionist gnome and Lidda the halfling thief) and two characters of the races (outside human) you hint are attractive (soveliss the half elf ranger and Mialee the elf wizard). That split is relatively even, and if anything skewed toward the males more frequently belonging to the unatractive race. Of course 3.5 canon is only a single example, and I am happy to hear of other examples (that ar visual) tht depict femals as more frequently members of the beautiful races.


Yes the point stands out clearer for antagonist (the latest Bewulf movie is a good example:

Male monster: http://www.writeups.org/wp-content/uploads/Grendel-2007-Beowulf-movie-Crispin-Glover-d.jpg

female monster:

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Fm5E_qMkav4/maxresdefault.jpg

complete with "stilletto heels"!

As I said to Max Killjoy, happy to discuss whether more female or male antagonists are attractive, so long as I know how you think it relates to the wider discussion. Because I can conceive of a person trying to argue either of the following from a feminist perspective:
- Female villians should not be unattractive (or at least not to a greater degree that unattractive female heroes) because that suggests that a woman who is unattractive is not someone who should be accepted.
- Female villians should be unattractive on at least some occassions to better reflect the fact that women come in lots of shapes, sizes and degree of attractiveness.

If we do discuss, a couple of indivual examples wont be sufficient. There are lots of villians (regardless of gender) who are depicted as unatrractive - so , imatch your beowulf with Cruella Deville


The second point is that famles are always (or at leats very frequently) "dressed" to be sexy, while the men are dressed to be competent at what they do!

I don't mind women in no clothing. If we have a culture where everyone fights nude, then both men and women should do so (instead media will often have women in something that looks like a bikini). If we have a culture where people fight in armour, then both men and women should wear armour (instead media will often have women in something that looks like a bikini). It shouldn't be that hard.

As noted in response to a previous poster - whether women are dressed provocatively relaitve to men is a different line of discussion than whether they are always attractive (as heroes) while men (as heroes) are allowed to be ugly (despite the evidence suggesting otherwise). If you want to have that discussion by all means do (I understand the counter-argument is the personification of a male in fantasy, Conan, who only wears a loin cloth), but please don't use it as a reply to the seperate line of discussion about whether male/female human heroes are sometimes depicted as ugly.

Floret
2017-08-04, 08:02 AM
So what you're saying is it doesn't matter. Because it's not a real person.

Further, you must admit that the creation of the character, from physical design to personality is solely the discretion of the creator. Ergo, the creator deems that she does so by choice. So she does so by choice. In the same way that if the creator decides she is not above killing a bad guy, she is not above killing a bad guy. Or that she likes kittens, so she likes kittens. Nobody is subjecting any sort of being to something against their will. The fact that some women actively choose to dress in such ways in life only further demonstrates the problem with that idea, since you can't even say it's particularly unrealistic, aside from possibly making an argument that it is exaggerated - which art regularly does with the real.

...you are missing the point intentionally, aren't you?

No, what I am saying is that using in-universe justifications against out-of-universe criticism (Or, Watsonian justifications for Doylist cristicism, if we want to use precise and fancy terms) is irrelevant. I am saying that the argument that a character or a real women might "choose" to dress that way is wholly irrelevant to the discussion of a single piece of media; or at the very least not a very good argument to wholly deflect criticism of such depictions.
I am saying that a woman choosing to wear something skimpy on her own is not equivalent to someone else deciding a woman should wear something skimpy. Or, as is the case with many of the media under discussion, that many if not all of the women should wear something skimpy.

I am saying that the reason for such depiction can never just be "it fits the character" or "the character chose that", because those things don't matter, those are both made up. The real-life person that designed these things had a reason for making them that way, and it is THAT reason we need to look at in this regard; and THAT is what is being discussed.
Media is only relevant through it's real-life ties; both in reception and in creation.

kraftcheese
2017-08-04, 08:09 AM
So what you're saying is it doesn't matter. Because it's not a real person.

Further, you must admit that the creation of the character, from physical design to personality is solely the discretion of the creator. Ergo, the creator deems that she does so by choice. So she does so by choice. In the same way that if the creator decides she is not above killing a bad guy, she is not above killing a bad guy. Or that she likes kittens, so she likes kittens. Nobody is subjecting any sort of being to something against their will. The fact that some women actively choose to dress in such ways in life only further demonstrates the problem with that idea, since you can't even say it's particularly unrealistic, aside from possibly making an argument that it is exaggerated - which art regularly does with the real.
I was saying the in-story reasoning behind something doesn't negate the fact that someone created the piece of media; the character and their choices are written by someone with their own biases...it also means the piece of media isn't in a bubble away from societal implications and immune to criticism.

Feelin' like a broken record here folks.

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 08:11 AM
You keep trying to make this point, but it doesn't make sense; it doesn't matter whether the characters are attractive within the story, or to other hobbits, etc. because they're characters that have been created by human beings (or actors picked by humans) in media for consumption by humans.

It's the same problem as when people say "It's *female character*'s choice to dress this way; why's it ok for women to dress like that irl but not in media?"; the characters aren't real people making their own decisions, they're characters in media with a creator and an audience.

OK.

So would you accept one of the many animal characters, such as Nala from the Lion King or Judy Hopps from Zootopia, as an example of a female character whois not attractive (hopefully) to the intended human audience.

If you would, then at least you are being consistent. I disagree with you, because I think such characters are not portrayed as attractive to humans but instead as attractive to their own species. But at least you are not choosing one rule for male characters and another for female.

If you do think those two are examples of females who are not attractive (to humans) then we have an additional decent handful of both female and male protaonists who are not attractive (to humans).

kraftcheese
2017-08-04, 08:17 AM
OK.

So would you accept one of the many animal characters, such as Nala from the Lion King or Judy Hopps from Zootopia, as an example of a female character whois not attractive (hopefully) to the intended human audience.

If you would, then at least you are being consistent. I disagree with you, because I think such characters are not portrayed as attractive to humans but instead as attractive to their own species. But at least you are not choosing one rule for male characters and another for female.

If you do think those two are examples of females who are not attractive (to humans) then we have an additional decent handful of both female and male protaonists who are not attractive (to humans).
I do accept that, but my point wasn't that there are no unattractive female characters in media, just that there is a disparity of attractiveness between male and female characters.

Satinavian
2017-08-04, 08:17 AM
...you are missing the point intentionally, aren't you?

No, what I am saying is that using in-universe justifications against out-of-universe criticism (Or, Watsonian justifications for Doylist cristicism, if we want to use precise and fancy terms) is irrelevant. I am saying that the argument that a character or a real women might "choose" to dress that way is wholly irrelevant to the discussion of a single piece of media; or at the very least not a very good argument to wholly deflect criticism of such depictions.
I am saying that a woman choosing to wear something skimpy on her own is not equivalent to someone else deciding a woman should wear something skimpy. Or, as is the case with many of the media under discussion, that many if not all of the women should wear something skimpy.

I am saying that the reason for such depiction can never just be "it fits the character" or "the character chose that", because those things don't matter, those are both made up. The real-life person that designed these things had a reason for making them that way, and it is THAT reason we need to look at in this regard; and THAT is what is being discussed.
Media is only relevant through it's real-life ties; both in reception and in creation.

So notthing any of your RPG-character wears does fit his or her character because such a thing as "fitting a fictional character" can't exist ?

Sorry, that must be grating for anyone valueing versimilitude in fiction. And it gets even more stupid considering legacy characters and decades of franchises where artists now are not the ones who made the decisions that work as constraints.


Yes, it is often used as a shallow excuse, but that does not invalidate the concept.

I mean, this whole thread started about realistic, believable armor. And now you are saying it is irrelevant, what the fictional characters in question actually would wear ?

Keltest
2017-08-04, 08:19 AM
I do accept that, but my point wasn't that there are no unattractive female characters in media, just that there is a disparity of attractiveness between male and female characters.

Also, from my occasional glimpses into the darker corners of the internet, I am not entirely certain that people don't consider them attractive.

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 08:36 AM
Well, it wasn't specified, but really, looking at what is being discussed and in this forum? It was what was being talked about.
The fact argued wasn't "there are loads of them" but "there are some, while there are pretty much no female variants". Noone claimed ugly heroes to be in any way near the majority.

Discussed on this forum as in only those genres are discussed on the wider forum? I don't think so.

Or do you mean only in this thread.

Sorry, if you think that there was some implicit or implied genre restriction that means that only those genres were being discussed, you are going to have to provide a little more.


As for "not unattractive by the standards of their own species"... That doesn't MATTER. Because that is made up. The viewers aren't of that species. We all aren't of that species, that species does not exist, their culture, their spectrums of attraction do all not exist. Someone made that up, and invented the rules; but real-life reception of these doesn't work by those rules. It works by the rules of attraction of real-life human people. What a made-up culture thinks is attractive is wholly constructed, and irrelevant to the discussion of real-life media depictions and their impact.
I, as a human, real person, am not judging the attractiveness of Twi'lek by their own societies standards, but by real-life human standards, just as any one of us does (Likewise with dwarves, hobbits, elves, orcs, etc.). The sexualised Asari of Mass Effect aren't sexualised because of their own culture, they are sexualised by a human being that drew them to be attractive to human beings, wholly unrelated to any cultural beauty standards that same (or any other person) made up for the corresponding culture. The impact of sexualisation is not due to them being attractive by those made-up standards, but due to them being attractive by real-world ones.

Ok. by that standard the overwhelming majority (and I think to many people all) non-human creatures are unattractive. Twi'lek is unattractive (pic below for those who are interested).

https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/databank_twilek_01_169_ddff0797.jpeg?region=0%2C0% 2C1560%2C878&width=768

As I said to kraftcheese above, if that is your logic you would have to accept that there are many unatractive (to humans) female characters out there - including nearly every character who is an animal (which are lots).


And I find the argument to be somewhat in bad faith, at least. I mean, seriously, to take "human" so literally as to completely exclude and disregard even the most human-looking humanoids is really, really stretching believability as to being anything more than an arbitrary criteria to exclude given examples. Crash bandicoot (The fox guy)? Yeah, that one doesn't count. The thing (Rock thing) actually IS technically human, only mutated, but sure, that might throw him out of bounds. But Gimli? The hobbits? Characters where there are actively real-life people/Actors that are being called unattractive? C'mon...
why is it so hard to come up with human examples of ugly heroic characters? I mean there are thousands of human characters even with the fantasy/scifi/superhero genres (which you think are the relevant ones) alone. That it is so hard to come up with examples of human male characters who are ugle suggests that there are very few of them.

As for the hobbits, are they really so ugly? You may think so, but a google search referencing Frodo suggests that many think otherwise.


Does the text confirm that? Where? As I said, the statement you quoted sets her apart from being attractive in the "cute" variety, but that is far from the only version in existance. Her being of the "hard, unyielding, cold beauty" (or, "harsh") variety does not stop her from being attractive.
She is, in any case, far, FAR from being similar to Rorschach in attractiveness; or any of the other characters. Sure, subjective and all, but come the **** on, unambiguously UGLY she ain't. (Also, fixed that link for you, you added a : at the end that was too much)

The text explicitly identifes her appearance as harsh as well as identifying her as being apart from cute. She is also featured on TV tropes as having "A face of a thug" - which is the same trope that characterises Rorscharch' appearance.

I am not sure how much further i can go with you on her appearance. She appears unattractive to me. Her character page describes her (clearly on my interpretation) as unattractive and the TV tropes page gives her the unattractive reference. If you disagree I think we can only put that down to a subjective diffuerence of opinion.

Thanks for fixing the link.


Since the thread is about depiction of female clothing first and foremost, and depiction of female characters in general as a tangent, I thought it was relevant to the thread topic. For her being attractive, it is dubiously relevant, though characters intended to be ugly aren't generally sexualised; and if so, as a joke (see for example deadpool in Jean Grey's old uniform (http://i.imgur.com/PzLxC23.jpg)), which this really doesn't seem to be.

Yep,relevant to the thread topic, and relevant to another strain of the conversation I see ongoing (I think the counter-example presented is Conan, who is usually depicted in fur briefs only). But noth relevant to this strain of the conversation - and characters depcited as ugly (but with good bodies) are frequently shown in revealng clothing - see the Juggernaut (X-men) example raised earlier.


No problem for identifying Rorschach, though I must point out he was in at least one of the earlier bunches of pics before the last one as well. So no, not four tries ;)Yep, fair call, I found him in the third, so three tries and probably twently pics.

kraftcheese
2017-08-04, 08:38 AM
Also, from my occasional glimpses into the darker corners of the internet, I am not entirely certain that people don't consider them attractive.
Yeah...I didn't really feel like mentioning that but yeah, I've got a sneaking suspicion that the designs of most "funny animal" women are influenced by a/multiple furrys' attractions.

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 08:41 AM
I do accept that, but my point wasn't that there are no unattractive female characters in media, just that there is a disparity of attractiveness between male and female characters.

Ok. But the disparity does not seem to exist (or at least not to any great extent) with respect to human hero characters.

So you rely entirely on non-human depictions of male animals/non-humans as being unattractive and animal/non-human females as being attractive to make your point about disparity?

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-04, 09:07 AM
So interesting observation related to where this topic has gone... I'm trying to find reference art for an NPC I'm writing up for someone else's project, and in doing so, I've been reminded that image searches including anything about skin tone or face shape will pull up over 90% makeup tips... :smallconfused:

1337 b4k4
2017-08-04, 09:33 AM
A) A male character that looks and behaves in a way to appeal to women who want to be with him (I say women, largely because if this happens, it mostly is about straight women's tastes, that might overlap with bi women's tastes, but tends to differ from gay/bi men's tastes.). A character that exemplifies what culture connotates with what women find attractive in men. A character that is primarily goodlooking, designed to be ogled, one that makes you feel good while looking at him, and imagining being with him.
B) A male character that looks (or plays) in a way to appeal to men who want to be (like) him. A character that exemplifies what culture connotates with the epitome of manlyness. A character that is strong, capable, and quite possibly looks like what men think women find attractive, one that makes you feel some of those (especially strong) while playing him or imagining to be him.


And C? Because right now A and B have so much overlap as to be useless, unless you're seriously arguing that men don't want to "look and behave in a way to appeal to women who want to be with him" or "exemplifies what culture connotates with what women find attractive in men" or alternatively arguing that those things (attractive and appealing to women that want to be with him) are not "muscled (or at least well toned) and competent"

I mean about the only difference between your A and B definitions is that B includes "being strong", and given that in this discussion if a male character meets the B definition, they don't count as sexualized, then by that same logic applied equally to both sexes, any female character that:

"looks (or plays) in a way to appeal to women who want to be (like) her. A character that exemplifies what culture connotates with the epitome of womanlyness. A character that is strong, capable, and quite possibly looks like what women think men find attractive, one that makes you feel some of those (especially strong) while playing her or imagining to be her."

is also not sexualized. Which given the female fanbase for some traditionally "sexualized" characters (e.g. Lara Croft, whose games at least in my experience have been vastly more popular with my female friends than with my male friends) turns this whole discussion on its head. Since I presume that these are not the arguments you intend to make, again I will ask for a definition of a male character that can satisfy the A definition while not overlapping with the B definition. Or to make things easier (and probably more realistic), a definition for A and B that even if slightly overlapping:
A) if applied to a given male character you would agree that said character is "overtly" or otherwise badly (per the general definitions used here for female characters) sexualized
and
B) if gender swapped and applied to a "sexualized" female character would encompass all of that character

Edit
-----------

Also I'm calling foul on your comparisons of mens and women's depictions of Hugh Jackman. Your cherry picked extreme examples, and specifically ignored the context that the mens image is on a magazine specifically about building muscle. Here are some alternate men's magazine treatments:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/7e/0d/01/7e0d017c344284aaf140dded7056650f--guy-senior-pictures-pretty-men.jpg

Men's Fitness (http://www.famousfix.com/topic/mens-fitness-magazine-australia-january-2012)

http://www.themaggies.com.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/MENSJOURNALhugh.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ca/6a/09/ca6a0905c3cfe7941f35eaaaead136e2--mens-health-uk-health-magazine.jpg

And an alternate Women's Mag cover for balance the other way:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/81/Woman%27s_Day_Cover_May_26_2014.png/220px-Woman%27s_Day_Cover_May_26_2014.png

Floret
2017-08-04, 09:35 AM
So notthing any of your RPG-character wears does fit his or her character because such a thing as "fitting a fictional character" can't exist ?

Sorry, that must be grating for anyone valueing versimilitude in fiction. And it gets even more stupid considering legacy characters and decades of franchises where artists now are not the ones who made the decisions that work as constraints.

Yes, it is often used as a shallow excuse, but that does not invalidate the concept.

I mean, this whole thread started about realistic, believable armor. And now you are saying it is irrelevant, what the fictional characters in question actually would wear ?

Of course not. They wear things that fit their character - I take great care to do so (Most of my current player characters (due to constant GMing in TTRPGs are for Larp, so maybe even deeper care than some other people; since I do actually have to consider "Is this practical/possible to wear for days, possibly in any number of weather conditions" as a very real criteria).
But they didn't decide these things for themselves. Sure, the things fit them, but that is purely because I designed the characters in a way that would fit with such clothes - and, sure, while adding to the wardrobe also spent a thought on "would this fit with the character". Or, rather "Does this fit my image of the character and the way I want this character to be".
"It's what my character would do" is quite often called out as a rather irrelevant rationalisation ******* over the group - you designed your character that way, and it is not an excuse. Just as I am still responsible for every action my character takes, I am still responsible for how characters I designed are dressed.

The decision for how to portray characters in fiction is solely on the humans portraying them; not the characters themselves. They might take care to consider the versimilitude and logic of the situation, think about what a person with the way they see their character's personality would wear in such a situation; and I greatly laud them for doing this - it creates more engaging and consistent art. But that is thinking about your decisions as a creator, not the character deciding anything.
So, I am not saying it is irrelevant what the fictional character would wear - not for the creation of enjoyable, consitent and (if you consider this a sign of it, which I would) quality art. I AM saying it is pretty irrelevant in regards to discussing whether or not the art is sexist/objectifying etc. It can make sense for a character to be dressed in revealing or sexualised clothing, but the reason for it has to go beyond just "the character would wear such a thing".


Ok. by that standard the overwhelming majority (and I think to many people all) non-human creatures are unattractive. Twi'lek is unattractive (pic below for those who are interested).

https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/databank_twilek_01_169_ddff0797.jpeg?region=0%2C0% 2C1560%2C878&width=768

As I said to kraftcheese above, if that is your logic you would have to accept that there are many unatractive (to humans) female characters out there - including nearly every character who is an animal (which are lots).

Yes. I accept that fact. I for one am not actually discussing the existence of things, or even the raw numbers, though. I am mostly discussing proportionate numbers. And if the ratio of male animal characters to male characters and female animal characters to female characters is roughly similar (Which someone would have to test, but I think it probably is; I have not found men to be more likely to be depicted as animals beyond the standard fact that male characters are more likely to exist, period.
So if this chunk is irrelevant to differentiating the ratios, we are left with the vaguely humanoid characters. (I would consider also throwing out robots, but then again all too often male robots are just machine-looking while female-coded ones end up being fembots - EDI from Mass Effect, posted above, for example, or the Watchknights from guild wars. Why do those robots have boobs, exactly? Or Aliens, but then again there is somehow a tendency to have female aliens be more likely to fall under the possible spectrum of attraction than male ones (For example, the aforementioned twi'lek)) And, amongst them, there IS a disparity.
This disparity is the problem. Not that there are no ugly/unattractive female characters; or many ugly male ones, but that there are, in equivalent situations (where theoretically attraction is possible) disproportionately more unattractive men then women. And that this disparity, since it falls along gender lines, might quite possibly be sexist.

(As for the question posed in another post of yours on what would be more feminist: I take answer c) Have female villains be unattractive, because humans and women can be that way, but at a similar rate to the heroes, as to show that there is no relation between prettiness and goodness, no matter how much culture often tries to say otherwise.)


The text explicitly identifes her appearance as harsh as well as identifying her as being apart from cute. She is also featured on TV tropes as having "A face of a thug" - which is the same trope that characterises Rorscharch' appearance.

I am not sure how much further i can go with you on her appearance. She appears unattractive to me. Her character page describes her (clearly on my interpretation) as unattractive and the TV tropes page gives her the unattractive reference. If you disagree I think we can only put that down to a subjective diffuerence of opinion.

Thanks for fixing the link.

Appearantly, looking back, fixing the link did nothing, sorry for misleading you. Maybe it still being the result of a google search throws a wrench in the gears?

As I have said, "harsh" does not mean "unattractive" in any sense, and "cute" is, while certainly a subterm of "attractive", not synoymous with it.
As for that trope?
I think this quote from the page on it might be relevant:

Please note that it doesn't necessarily mean "ugly", even though most of the examples below are. It's more about looking threatening than actually looking bad, and it's possible to look both handsome and fearsome.
And then, in the examples section has this to say on how the character fits this trope:

MMA fighter "Mistress" Ayane in Gold Digger would love to be a Face; unfortunately, she has the coldest, cruelest eyes on the planet and a wicked smile to boot.
"Cruel eyes" aren't exactly synonymous with "ugly" in my book. Still not convinced. Maybe I am just into (physically) strong and dominant women. *shrug*
Anyone else with an opinion on this character's looks to break the tie?


Yep,relevant to the thread topic, and relevant to another strain of the conversation I see ongoing (I think the counter-example presented is Conan, who is usually depicted in fur briefs only). But noth relevant to this strain of the conversation - and characters depcited as ugly (but with good bodies) are frequently shown in revealng clothing - see the Juggernaut (X-men) example raised earlier.

Yep, fair call, I found him in the third, so three tries and probably twently pics.

Revealing clothing =/= sexualisation, the thread has been over this.


Ok. But the disparity does not seem to exist (or at least not to any great extent) with respect to human hero characters.

So you rely entirely on non-human depictions of male animals/non-humans as being unattractive and animal/non-human females as being attractive to make your point about disparity?

The claim that such a disparity does not exist is not something that has been sufficiently proven - there have been unambiguous examples of one, but none of the other. And no matter how big, the fact that it exists at all is kind of the point. The fact that animal/non-human characters are more likely to be created in such a way as to be attractive to humans than male ones, is part of the point, and not something that can be dismissed as tangential.


And C? Because right now A and B have so much overlap as to be useless, unless you're seriously arguing that men don't want to "look and behave in a way to appeal to women who want to be with him" or "exemplifies what culture connotates with what women find attractive in men" or alternatively arguing that those things (attractive and appealing to women that want to be with him) are not "muscled (or at least well toned) and competent"

I mean about the only difference between your A and B definitions is that B includes "being strong", and given that in this discussion if a male character meets the B definition, they don't count as sexualized, then by that same logic applied equally to both sexes, any female character that:

"looks (or plays) in a way to appeal to women who want to be (like) her. A character that exemplifies what culture connotates with the epitome of womanlyness. A character that is strong, capable, and quite possibly looks like what women think men find attractive, one that makes you feel some of those (especially strong) while playing her or imagining to be her."

is also not sexualized. Which given the female fanbase for some traditionally "sexualized" characters (e.g. Lara Croft, whose games at least in my experience have been vastly more popular with my female friends than with my male friends) turns this whole discussion on its head. Since I presume that these are not the arguments you intend to make, again I will ask for a definition of a male character that can satisfy the A definition while not overlapping with the B definition. Or to make things easier (and probably more realistic), a definition for A and B that even if slightly overlapping:
A) if applied to a given male character you would agree that said character is "overtly" or otherwise badly (per the general definitions used here for female characters) sexualized
and
B) if gender swapped and applied to a "sexualized" female character would encompass all of that character

It is possible for these to be overlapping, yes.
As for more detailed answers: One difference is the focus. Is the focus primarily on looking good (A), or on being strong (B)?
The second difference is in the detail of "What men think women find attractive" and "What women find attractive" being two categories with overlap, but not synonymous. The two depictions of Hugh Jackman were intended to exemplify that. Or maybe this comic (http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/) that had been linked already far earlier in this thread. Men like to think women care as much about them being insanely muscled badasses, but... the depiction of pure muscle, as for example on Conan or Kratos (very naked men) isn't as generally attractive to women, for example, as the also depicted nice cleavage and thin waistline on women to men.

As for that equivalence... Yeah, I would probably not count that character as sexualised. Or, maybe I would - see, the problem is, "womanlyness" and "manlyness" have very, very different connotations (Some of them disquialify a "strong, capable" character that makes you feel strong as being the epitome of "womanlyness"). What has been constructed as gender roles has men as acting, women as reacting party. So a man fullfilling all the things society says men should be is an active person; a woman... looks pretty and waits for the man. Maybe cooks for him.

Lara Croft is a curious example. Because, really, especially in the most recent games, I really, really wouldn't call her sexualised. Even in the old ones, "reasonable shorts and Tanktops" is at the rather low end of "sexy" clothes. Sure, there are some midriff-baring outfits here and there, but in general, the culture surrounding it sexualised Lara Croft far more than the games ever did (I don't count giant breast as sexualisation).

Maybe trying this...
A sexualised male character will be designed in such a way that the outfit overemphasises the character's attractiveness at the cost of situational/versimilitudinal logic; more than the equivalent female characters. Focusses on the characters sexual characteristics and physical desirability (In a broad sense; butt, bulge in the pants and a toned figure or attractive/pretty face are things that I would count here) over their other attributes and skills.

As for the depictions of Hugh Jackman - I had taken them from an older post from someone else that I had saved up; not searched for them myself. I admit the mistake in that. Still, it stands that the most muscle-focussed, posing image is not presented as "what women want" but "what men want". From looking over a complete google search, the disparity is clearly way overexxagerated in the two I had picked originally, but, what in my perception still remains: The covers on men's magazines, on average, tend to focus on his muscles more than the covers of women's magazines.
Or, on a larger point, which is why I went back to that other post in the first place "Being muscular" is a trait that women do tend to find attractive in men; but which's importance and centrality for attraction is overexxagerated in what men tend to think women find attractive.

kraftcheese
2017-08-04, 09:36 AM
Ok. But the disparity does not seem to exist (or at least not to any great extent) with respect to human hero characters.

So you rely entirely on non-human depictions of male animals/non-humans as being unattractive and animal/non-human females as being attractive to make your point about disparity?
I think the ten or so examples that have been posted here aren't exactly proof either way because they're such a small sample size.

And is that second point supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"?

Orcus The Vile
2017-08-04, 10:03 AM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8d/38/fb/8d38fb1b539af41cb939a110c2421e52--camp-outfits-cool-cosplay.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z0AxiVDEpPg/hqdefault.jpg
https://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters/ashrah.jpg
https://ugc.kn3.net/i/origin/http://www.therobotspajamas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/frost.png
It's not enough for the moral indignants to have aspects that appeal to multiple aesthetics in the same game, only their preference. Everyone else is wrong. They're somehow corrupting the society (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThinkOfTheChildren) with their preferences. The usual spiel.

I have no sympathy left for that position.

EDIT: I mean, take an audit of which side of this conversation has been actively hostile. Go back and look. At worst I've been cheeky, or poked fun at bad arguments. The moral indignants jumped strait to getting dirty as soon as their position met with resistance or challenge, rapidly escalating to name calling and various fallacious appeals (including but not limited to ad hominems, slippery slope fallacy, and appeals to emotion), and choosing to not view posts that are contrary to their own (in the case of Max).

And that's just proves my point; Thanks for your help.

If we have plenty of well-dressed characters in mortal kombat there is no reason for the female characters in Mortal kombat 2011 wear nothing but lingerie.

This just proves that skimpy outfits are not a big or important part of game.

And that was my point the whole time! So yeah, I'm glad we are finally in the same page.

Tobtor
2017-08-04, 10:11 AM
If we do discuss, a couple of indivual examples wont be sufficient. There are lots of villians (regardless of gender) who are depicted as unatrractive - so , imatch your beowulf with Cruella Deville


Are you serious?

You are matching the monster from Beowulf:

http://www.writeups.org/wp-content/uploads/Grendel-2007-Beowulf-movie-Crispin-Glover-d.jpg

with:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTU2MDU5ODI2OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODYwNjM5MQ@@._ V1_.jpg

?

I might agree that Glenn Close is not "attractive" (at least to me) in that movie. But not at the same way as the monster is. She is still following standard beaty-ideals (even if over the top, horrible kind of way.
Even in the animated version Cruella lives up to some of the "standard" ideals (thin, hour-glass figure etc. Much more so than her two henchmen. So we still have that the woman is more "attractive" than the men in the same movie:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTcwNTQzOTMxNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjU3NTgxMzE@._ V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1332,1000_AL_.jpg

If she had had two hot male henchmen it would be (slightly) similar to the Beowulf case.

Also:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/fd/cc/65/fdcc6525932ce4aeb01d028c462d56e0--disney-romance-disney-couples.jpg


How are you rating male/female human (not quite) heroes? The man is silly, clumsy etc, and not very "hot" other than that he has skills (as a writer). While her feats are "beauty" and "sweetness" (and money?). A very good case I might add.

Also Emma Stone is apparently to star as Cruella in an upcoming movie... So they pick "attractive" actresses for Cruella.

kraftcheese
2017-08-04, 10:14 AM
And that's just proves my point; Thanks for your help.

If we have plenty of well-dressed characters in mortal kombat there is no reason for the female characters in Mortal kombat 2011 wear nothing but lingerie.

This just proves that skimpy outfits are not a big or important part of game.

And that was my point the whole time! So yeah, I'm glad we are finally in the same page.
I never picked the Prince of Undeath and Demon Lord of the Abyss as a progressive, but hey, I'm not gonna look the gift tanar'ri in the mouth. ;)

SaurOps
2017-08-04, 10:15 AM
So notthing any of your RPG-character wears does fit his or her character because such a thing as "fitting a fictional character" can't exist ?

Sorry, that must be grating for anyone valueing versimilitude in fiction. And it gets even more stupid considering legacy characters and decades of franchises where artists now are not the ones who made the decisions that work as constraints.

Versimilitude has to be stretched very, very far to allow for boob windows and other fanservice-oriented compromises to the function of armor. It doesn't have to be stretched very far to have flashy armor that can still function as armor, or even magic, because the context of a story can handle that, as long as it has focus. When you start stripping off clothing and armor, however, the context starts to lose distinction from fanservice, and eventually from material where the sex is the first priority and everything else is an afterthought.



Yes, it is often used as a shallow excuse, but that does not invalidate the concept.

I mean, this whole thread started about realistic, believable armor. And now you are saying it is irrelevant, what the fictional characters in question actually would wear ?

No, it's very relevant. It's also not a choice made by the character, because the character doesn't make choices unless the author makes choices for them. Those choices can reinforce a running theme or idea in the work or compromise it; fanservice tends to overwhelmingly end up in the latter category, to the point where the characters engaging in it might end up having one question why the hell a ridiculous event is going on, while another gives a resigned metatextual explanation. If fanservice can be self-aware that it doesn't belong in the established context of a story, why bother trying to defend it with in-universe explanations, or at all?

Mendicant
2017-08-04, 10:28 AM
I wasn't aware we were addressing only a narrow band of genres. I saw a lot of people were posting animated/comic types, but certainyl not all (see Gimli/Frodo/Bilbo). I suppose that if we are talking about only a very narrow band where the majority is inhuman in some way I have to agree that making everyone human limits the discussion a bit. Could you perhaps clarify what genre you were referring to?

Science fiction, and fantasy, primarily. To a lesser extent the kinds of historical fiction or noir that shade into those things. Like, we're in a thread about "armor designs for females" in a general roleplaying board. The examples are overwhelmingly fantasy art, videogame art, and comics. Nobody is bringing in Mark Twain and the Bronte Sisters.



Well you may see that as more useful for whatever broader point you are trying to make. But it is not what was being discussed - the point was made about heroic characters (so not antagonists etc). You can respond to that point by saying "yes there are plenty of heroic human males who are ugly", which is the tangent I am discussing or by saying "I don't think that classification is useful" which is not something I am well placed to discuss because I am not accross the history of the conversation between Ahsiel and Amazon and what underlying point each were making (which may be different to the point you are trying to make).

Narrowing it to "only human heroes" (and then moving the goalposts by stipulating "in human form") doesn't have any justification in the context of this thread. At no point has anyone else limited themselves to that narrow range, and there's no compelling reason to do so.


Well, so far it seems to be a bit stronger than a tendency. So far it seems that human heroic characters are near uniformally depicted as attractive. I imagine someone will come up with some counter-examples soon.

Jumped the gun here, huh?



I guess whether Jonah Hex qualifies depends on how widely you define hero or heroic character. I must admit to not knowing much about him. If you say he qualifies I will take your word for it.

I'm not sure the knight qualifies as obviously ugly, although I will concede that he is not obviously good looking.

Quasimodo is an interesting one because one of the main points of his story is that his ugliness sets him apart from the typical male hero. Although I agree that he definitely qualifies, I think he actually goes against the spirit of the question.

I'm afraid I don't recognise the other two, so cannot comment.

Rorschach from Watchmen and Marv from Sin City.


Fair play though, you have identified at least one (perhaps more). I do suggest though, that the fact it took four attempts (by different people) and that the ones you have used are not quite clear cut, and not that high profile, suggests that ugly male human male heros are pretty rare too.

I identified 5, your discounting of Ben Grimm and Hulk is an unjustified goalpost shift, and "neener neener, Deadpool is technically a mutant" isn't actually a real gotcha.

Also, people should stop using movie and television versions of characters in an art thread. Hollywood prettying up characters like Tyrion Lannister or Wolverine is several steps removed from what this thread is about. (Though even there, women get much more reliably prettied up than men.)

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 10:37 AM
but the point is you often see males of "unattractive" "races" while females are often elves or fairies or similar. As the audience is human, it is clear that females are still made to be attractive as their main characterisitc, while men can be attractive, strong, clever, a tragic misunderstood creature (hunchback from notre dame) or any other number of things. People are not arguing that there shoul not be attractive female heroes. But that women should be treated just like men. That is if it makes sense for them to be attractive, by all means let them be. But when they are out adventrueing do not have them where stilletto heels (invented in the 20th century by the way, they appear far too often in stories of the past).hmmm... You've given me something to think about. Stay tuned.
I decided to flex the creative muscle to make a new super heroine who's disfigured. So I started pondering what might make a female normie become horrifically scarred, attain super powers, and then dedicate her life to utterly wrecking everything in her path out of a sense of righteous vengeance and do-goodin'. He's a pitch.

https://i.gyazo.com/49d8a666c9b5be30a11aba76b2d4c8cf.png
Origin Story: In a time of religious and political turmoil, Aida made the mistake of being born a woman. Coming from a moderate muslim family, she attended school with the intent on becoming a doctor. However, during a riot, she was horrifically burned with sulfuric acid for failing to conform to the societal expectations of dress for her station.

As luck would have it, the burning flags coated in the blood of the innocent throughout the riot attracted a female shai'tan djinn. She appeared from the smoke of the burning flags, awashed in the blood of innocents. In a cloud of ash and cinders, she appeared, and not one saw her - save for Aida, who was on the verge of death and could see into the world between light and darkness. And the shai'tan too could see her.

In an instant, the two locked minds and time appeared to stop. "So the flesh and blood was yours and your family's," the djinn remarked as the two floated in some space between space, surrounded by stars, suns, sand, mountains, and rivers in seemingly nonsensical directions. Trapped in this state, the pain of dying to the corrosion was unbearable, stretched out from moments to minutes. The djinn sensed the hurt, rage, and loss overflowing from the woman's soul and she smiled. "Tell me human, what is your heart's greatest desire? Shall I kill you and end this torment? I could make all the pain go away," the shai'tan say lifting the woman's sizzling face up by the chin to meet her eyes. "Name anything you desire, and I will grant it with my power," she cooed.

Aida could only look upon the woman made of smoke and fire through one eye, as the other had already been rendered useless by the wounds she had sustained. Yet it was not death that she spoke. "Free! Free!" she cried out into the void. The shai'tan narrowed her eyes and bit her lip a bit as she appraised the girl. "As free as we, the unbelieving? That is a heavy burden when submission to death would be easier. The first woman to demand freedom walked the world for the ages, bitter and alone. It would be easier to lie down and die. I'm sure whatever god you think you serve would have a cushy place prepared, yes?" the spirit warned. "Free..." Aida pleaded. The spirit grinned, stating "Then as with the first of the goddesses, I bestow upon you my great power, and you shall be an eternal fire that spreads across the land, as the wind, as the plague, and as the sky!" She then entered Aida through her mouth and nose in a cloud of incense and cinders.

Time seemed to return, and the wind whipped about unnaturally. There was an explosion of ash, sand, and smoke centered on Aida's dying body. As the smoke cleared, the body, still sizzling stood up. Her one good eye burned with the light of the sun. The burning rags on the ground flew to her as if by some sort of sorcery and garbed her similarly to the spirit that she had just witnessed in her vision. "I am the eternal fire," Aida spoke in a voice that shook the very ground, casting sand and dust around her. "I shall unmake all that you have made, and I shall rebuild all that you have destroyed, for you hold no power over mere now nor ever more," she exclaimed.

Many of the crowd believed this a work of the devil and fled to safety, while others attacked her with sword, club, and gun. However, Aida - now the eternal fire - was as nature itself. The sword passed through her flesh like water. The bullets passed through her like smoke. She moved like the wind, vanishing and reappearing like a desert mirage. Her touch caused boils and pestilence upon her assailants, withering and crippling them as she struck. When all lay crumbled before her, she looked upon the burning school behind her.

"There is much yet to be done..." she said, before vanishing into the wind like sand.
She shows a lot of skin, which shows off her horrific body scars. I had considered making her topless like the goddess Ishtar sometimes was depicted, but given that I'm posting it on GitP, I wanted it to be PG-13. If she looks like she has one boob, that's because she does. The other was melted off by the brunt of the acid attack before the invocation.

Her super powers include physical regeneration, short-range teleportation (discorporating into smoke and reforming nearby), and the ability to overwhelm those she strikes with disease and frailty. Her weaknesses include sorcerers who can ward against her powers and rebuke spirits. In her non-caped life, she now lives as a student in a western country who gets lots of abuse on the internet from religious extremists who fervently dislike her positive messages of religious reform.

Amazon
2017-08-04, 10:39 AM
In other words, would you be ok with it if some MMORPGs generally depcited women as attractive and in revealing outfits so that people who like seeing that can play it, so long as there were other options where MMORPGs do not depict women as generally revealingly dressed so thatyou and like minded people can play it?

Yeah, I'm fine with that, just look at dark souls, the differences between male and female armor is minimal most of the time. But that game has an enemy called Desert Sorceress and her armor set is available, she is a character that uses her sexuality as a weapon to lure the player, and that's fine because some women do use their sexuality that way, it would be a misrepresentation if they were not included, the problem is when every single piece of female equipment is the Desert Sorceress set.


Hahaha.

You using keikogi as an example of a battle outfit. Hilarious.

Reasons are simple. First, it's not a battle outfit. It's a sports outfit made for training and non-lethal combat.

Second, it'd basically white pajamas.

Short history lesson: this particular style of garb started as just normal clothes in Japan. Specifically, underwear. Ordinarily, you're supposed to wear at least proper pants (hakama) over it, like is still done in Kendo, Aikido etc.

However, during and after World War 2, there was shortage of everything. So some people could not afford proper pants. So they asked "sensei, can I train in just my underwear?" And senseis okayed it... for men. Women still had to wear pants, because it was considered simply indecent for them to prance around in mere underwear!

For some reason, the habit stuck. One reason was probably because non-colored plain shirt and pants were the cheapest possible training outfit, it's what you could realistically expect everyone to get for sports which are hard on clothes. Also served to erase economic classes in the dojo, putting everyone on the level.

But anyways: the lesson is that that lady pretty much is naked, for certain social definition of nakedness. The same applies to the MMA fighters another person posted. The reason is simple: for physically demanding athletic effort, you want to wear as little as you can get away with. It applies to all sports. Or do you see track & fielders in heavy clothing? Or marathon runners? Even winter sports trend toward form-fitting suit.

The only exceptions are heavy duty contact sports, such as ice hockey, american football, kendo etc.. Ice hockey or kendo gear are much closer to actual battle gear than keikogi.

Hahahaha I did say fighting a martial arts battle didn't I? I'm not saying "Go to war dressed like that" but on a fighting game is fine.

About MMA, as ďThe GlyphstoneĒ once said in a very similar thread.

"That outfit is optimized to maximize her ability to fight. Still a good bit of exposed skin on her limbs and midriff, but the muscles are cleanly in play and any titillation is incidental."

This:
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/21700000/Skarlet-mortal-kombat-21728241-629-330.png

Hardly is the same thing as this:

http://sporteology.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/91.jpg

Just as this (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QUcC6lbXPSo/V5Ys7iZUeBI/AAAAAAAAGUs/otm66v9biPcJoT_djRLQ9vc_S0Qua66ngCEw/s1600/images5.jpg) is hardly the same as this (https://images-eu.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41b2ROyLHAL._AC_UL260_SR200,260_.jpg) <- NSFW.

@Ashiel: You know what? The hate the sin don't hate the sinner ideology is actually a quite mature and advanced attitude for a religious organization, I may not agree with what they are against, but I rather know that they don't agree with "X" thing I do than that they hate me for doing "Y".

@Liquor Box , I'm sorry I have a hard time reading your posts, I think the way you write just make they all seem like a huge hyperbole mess to me. I'm sorry.

But let's me make one last point, When a guy who is transformed in a cat person looks like this:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/08/85/48/0885483e95c1937249dca834af916f5a.jpg

And a girl looks like this:

https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/1/15776/4976253-cheetah618.jpg

Don't you think we have a problem?



Back to the point of the thread:

I love how Valkyre has full body armor on the new Thor movie:

http://www.suacidade.com/sites/default/files/images/thor-1.jpg

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 10:39 AM
So interesting observation related to where this topic has gone... I'm trying to find reference art for an NPC I'm writing up for someone else's project, and in doing so, I've been reminded that image searches including anything about skin tone or face shape will pull up over 90% makeup tips... :smallconfused:
If you could be more specific, I might be able to help you find something you're looking for.

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 10:54 AM
@Ashiel: You know what? The hate the sin don't hate the sinner ideology is actually a quite mature and advanced attitude for a religious organization, I may not agree with what they are against, but I rather know that they don't agree with "X" thing I do than that they hate me for doing "Y".
Yes, definitely. Though it's still a matter of moral indignation and intolerance of the preferences of others for a thing that they have not been able to demonstrate to be harmful. Which is my point. I said way back during my first post that all of this comes down to one side of this debate being spurred either by their personal moral indignation, or their aesthetic preferences, and their desire to place those above those of everyone else.

Which thus far seems to be the case.


But let's me make one last point, When a guy who is transformed in a cat person looks like this:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/08/85/48/0885483e95c1937249dca834af916f5a.jpg

And a girl looks like this:

https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/1/15776/4976253-cheetah618.jpg

Don't you think we have a problem?
The beast I grew up with, looked like this and his uniform was a pair of briefs and a belt.
http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/30e08fc3-eaf5-4c03-883d-09b129d174b6/7fcf8a18-9fe8-4e9b-8cab-aed20bf51179.jpg

Amazon
2017-08-04, 10:56 AM
Yes, definitely. Though it's still a matter of moral indignation and intolerance of the preferences of others for a thing that they have not been able to demonstrate to be harmful. Which is my point. I said way back during my first post that all of this comes down to one side of this debate being spurred either by their personal moral indignation, or their aesthetic preferences, and their desire to place those above those of everyone else.

Which thus far seems to be the case.


The beast I grew up with, looked like this and his uniform was a pair of briefs and a belt.
http://cdn.playbuzz.com/cdn/30e08fc3-eaf5-4c03-883d-09b129d174b6/7fcf8a18-9fe8-4e9b-8cab-aed20bf51179.jpg

My point still stands.

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 10:58 AM
My point still stands.
Which was?

Orcus The Vile
2017-08-04, 11:09 AM
Yeah, I'm fine with that, just look at dark souls, the differences between male and female armor is minimal most of the time. But that game has an enemy called Desert Sorceress and her armor set is available, she is a character that uses her sexuality as a weapon to lure the player, and that's fine because some women do use their sexuality that way, it would be a misrepresentation if they were not included, the problem is when every single piece of female equipment is the Desert Sorceress set.

Hahahaha I did say fighting a martial arts battle didn't I? I'm not saying "Go to war dressed like that" but on a fighting game is fine.

About MMA, as ďThe GlyphstoneĒ once said in a very similar thread.

"That outfit is optimized to maximize her ability to fight. Still a good bit of exposed skin on her limbs and midriff, but the muscles are cleanly in play and any titillation is incidental."

This:
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/21700000/Skarlet-mortal-kombat-21728241-629-330.png

Hardly is the same thing as this:

http://sporteology.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/91.jpg

Just as this (https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-QUcC6lbXPSo/V5Ys7iZUeBI/AAAAAAAAGUs/otm66v9biPcJoT_djRLQ9vc_S0Qua66ngCEw/s1600/images5.jpg) is hardly the same as this (https://images-eu.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41b2ROyLHAL._AC_UL260_SR200,260_.jpg) <- NSFW.

@Ashiel: You know what? The hate the sin don't hate the sinner ideology is actually a quite mature and advanced attitude for a religious organization, I may not agree with what they are against, but I rather know that they don't agree with "X" thing I do than that they hate me for doing "Y".

@Liquor Box , I'm sorry I have a hard time reading your posts, I think the way you write just make they all seem like a huge hyperbole mess to me. I'm sorry.

But let's me make one last point, When a guy who is transformed in a cat person looks like this:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/08/85/48/0885483e95c1937249dca834af916f5a.jpg

And a girl looks like this:

https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/1/15776/4976253-cheetah618.jpg

Don't you think we have a problem?



Back to the point of the thread:

I love how Valkyre has full body armor on the new Thor movie:

http://www.suacidade.com/sites/default/files/images/thor-1.jpg

Yeah, dark souls armors look really good.

That photo of Skarlet don't do her ridiculous outfit justice.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-R6xuDzeM8ck/VI8ZWYWqL0I/AAAAAAAAARM/PWKCdkWW9Y8/s1600/Skarlet.png

High heels and nothing but a little bit of cloth, hack she jumps so much on her attacks that you can see her butt crack all the time it's offputing and even kind of embarrassing , they really over did it with a fighter that is basically naked... oh wait:

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma7f2eXBSK1r4uyoz.png

I pray to one day see a game where I can play as a naked dude with only some pices of cloth warped around his sexy body. Hahahahaha.

Here take a look at her full character model: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N44mnyVpQGU)

PeglegJim
2017-08-04, 11:40 AM
Literally nobody in Mortal Kombat is dressed practically or wears real armor. Plus they changed it in MKX. You're cherry picking costumes from the last game you had to go out of your way to get. Very sad.

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 11:43 AM
I pray to one day see a game where I can play as a naked dude with only some pices of cloth warped around his sexy body. Hahahahaha.
I think you can do that in the more recent Soul Calibur games. I know in SC5, I had some odd characters.

I had a female demon with ashen skin, red tattoos, hair, and eyes, angelic wings, and a pair of axes who was dressed like a barbarian (loincloths and such).

A samurai trap who everyone assumed was a woman unless they broke through her armor (which I can proudly say didn't happen often).

A female knight who wars armored to the teeth and relentlessly brutalized her opponents.

An incredibly flashy fellow by the name of Lieutenant Gi Bo Ti, who used Ivy Valentine's combat style, wore a masquerade mask, had long beautiful blonde hair in a braid, and was donned in the most prismatic heavy plate mail that I could construct, wearing a pair of shorts and sexy boots that looked a bit like a femme Zangief if you shattered his armor.

Oh he was delightful. :smallamused:

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-04, 11:48 AM
Literally nobody in Mortal Kombat is dressed practically or wears real armor. Plus they changed it in MKX. You're cherry picking costumes from the last game you had to go out of your way to get. Very sad.

What year was "the last game" published?

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 11:52 AM
Literally nobody in Mortal Kombat is dressed practically or wears real armor. Plus they changed it in MKX. You're cherry picking costumes from the last game you had to go out of your way to get. Very sad.
You mean wearing a pair of skin tight aerobics pants and boots (https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vFUcdBU1vvU/maxresdefault.jpg) to fight fire breathing phase shifting specters with barbed spears isn't practical armor? :smallbiggrin:

Amazon
2017-08-04, 12:03 PM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/8d/38/fb/8d38fb1b539af41cb939a110c2421e52--camp-outfits-cool-cosplay.jpg
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/Z0AxiVDEpPg/hqdefault.jpg
https://www.fightersgeneration.com/characters/ashrah.jpg
https://ugc.kn3.net/i/origin/http://www.therobotspajamas.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/frost.png


That's not fair the the two first characters are from the latest game, it's was after the Mk 2011 "Dude your female characters are wearing ridiculus and impraticla outfits fix this BS" contoversy. If we have non sexualied characters on that game it is thanks to the fans feedback that such art direction was not ok.


Which was?

That when you are a guy turned in a cat person you look weird with a dofus haircut and when you are a girl you become a sexy cat girl.

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 12:08 PM
What year was "the last game" published?
Ooh, pick me, pick me!

There was Mortal Kombat in 1992!
http://thelastmetroid.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/sonya-blade-mortal-kombat-1.jpg

Then MK II in 1993
http://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/414019-mortal-kombat-ii-sega-saturn-screenshot-kitana-is-not-a-fan.png

Then MK III in 1995
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/vVDHtPnoeEE/hqdefault.jpg

Then MK IV in 1997
http://www.2a.pl/~wi4348/rys/twarze/sonya.jpg

Then MK Deadly Alliance in 2002
https://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/mkwikia/images/6/64/Mkda_BODY_FROST.png

Then Deception in 2004
https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/mkwikia/images/a/a3/Ashrah7wx.png/revision/latest?cb=20110709062012

Then Mortal Kombat (9) in 2011
http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/22000000/MK-9-Story-Mode-sonya-blade-22090278-640-360.jpg

Then Mortal Kombat X in 2015
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/84/Cassie_Cage_Mortal_Kombat_X_Render.png

Tobtor
2017-08-04, 12:09 PM
Literally nobody in Mortal Kombat is dressed practically or wears real armor. Plus they changed it in MKX. You're cherry picking costumes from the last game you had to go out of your way to get. Very sad.

Don't know the game. Does the men really have as ridiculous outfits? Otherwise it was an example of what Amazon and Orcus The Vile were saying. Maybe it is better in a new game (again I don't know the games), but that doesn't take away that it is an example of horrible outfits for women to fight in.

Have you ever fought martial arts? Have you done so in extremely high heels? Have you ever fought with a tight leather band around your thigh, that is so tight that you can stick small knives(?) in and they will stay there? Thigh-muscles need space to move, try taking a string and tightening it so much that that is possible when your legs are relaxed, and then try to move afterwards....
(never mind the knives or whatever she is wearing in that strap, potentially cutting her when she moves). Also long painted nails? Extremely skinny (unrealistic and definitely sickly so). Big boobs who will definitely fall out if she does martial arts. It is not only that she is wearing almost nothing (which as such would be fine if everybody fought almost nude), it is also the fact that what she does wear underlines her as a "stripper/hooker", and not as a competent fighter.

EDIT: A google on Mortal Combat X gives pictures like this:

http://www.mortalkombatwarehouse.com/mkx/mileena/bio5.jpg

Cudo for making her head looking agressive/foul, but the body model and outfit? Really? The male portraits I saw might not have alot of armour, but the clothing looked more possible to move around in at least....

Amazon
2017-08-04, 12:10 PM
There was a also a MK x DC universe but we don't talk about that.

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 12:11 PM
That when you are a guy turned in a cat person you look weird with a dofus haircut and when you are a girl you become a sexy cat girl.
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c6/15/f2/c615f27ca029e5eb54e53b0a4afdc9c0--cheetahs-bad-boys.jpg

Amazon
2017-08-04, 12:13 PM
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/c6/15/f2/c615f27ca029e5eb54e53b0a4afdc9c0--cheetahs-bad-boys.jpg

My point still stands.


Don't know the game. Does the men really have as ridiculous outfits? Otherwise it was an example of what Amazon and Orcus The Vile were saying. Maybe it is better in a new game (again I don't know the games), but that doesn't take away that it is an example of horrible outfits for women to fight in.

Have you ever fought martial arts? Have you done so in extremely high heels? Have you ever fought with a tight leather band around your thigh, that is so tight that you can stick small knives(?) in and they will stay there? Thigh-muscles need space to move, try taking a string and tightening it so much that that is possible when your legs are relaxed, and then try to move afterwards....
(never mind the knives or whatever she is wearing in that strap, potentially cutting her when she moves). Also long painted nails? Extremely skinny (unrealistic and definitely sickly so). Big boobs who will definitely fall out if she does martial arts. It is not only that she is wearing almost nothing (which as such would be fine if everybody fought almost nude), it is also the fact that what she does wear underlines her as a "stripper/hooker", and not as a competent fighter.

No, they don't.

I agree 100%.

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 12:17 PM
Also long painted nails? Extremely skinny (unrealistic and definitely sickly so). Big boobs who will definitely fall out if she does martial arts. It is not only that she is wearing almost nothing (which as such would be fine if everybody fought almost nude), it is also the fact that what she does wear underlines her as a "stripper/hooker", and not as a competent fighter.
My stripper friends are quite classy actually. :smallamused:

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 12:18 PM
My point still stands.
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/012/238/3svw92.jpg

Amazon
2017-08-04, 12:22 PM
http://i0.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/012/238/3svw92.jpg

Oooook. Anyway, I'm glad the ****storm seems to be over now.

Ashiel's color really is white.

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 12:25 PM
Oooook. Anyway, I'm glad the ****storm seems to be over now.

Ashiel color really is white.
Now it's just a matter of cleaning the carpets. :smallfrown:

EDIT: Yes, white is a color.Blue is also a color. Green is also a color. Is there something that you're trying to say?

Amazon
2017-08-04, 12:30 PM
Now it's just a matter of cleaning the carpets. :smallfrown:

EDIT: Yes, white is a color.Blue is also a color. Green is also a color. Is there something that you're trying to say?

It says rigth there in your signature :smallconfused:

EDIT:
https://68.media.tumblr.com/37596dadbb69d232857763ca902581c4/tumblr_ou68s0OxlV1veme87o1_1280.jpg

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 12:34 PM
It says rigth there in your signature :smallconfused:
Maybe you can explain it to me. I'm not sure what you mean.

Did you mean...

"Ashiel, color really is white"?
"Ashiel's color really is white"?
"Ashiel really is white"?
Some other thing?


EDIT:EDIT:

https://68.media.tumblr.com/37596dadbb69d232857763ca902581c4/tumblr_ou68s0OxlV1veme87o1_1280.jpg

Ah, thanks for the clarification. You are correct.

Amazon
2017-08-04, 12:37 PM
Maybe you can explain it to me. I'm not sure what you mean.

Did you mean...

"Ashiel, color really is white"?
"Ashiel's color really is white"?
"Ashiel really is white"?
Some other thing?



I'm agreeing with you, you say you are just and protective but can get kind of authoritarian and dogmatic; I'm saying that I agree with you, thatís what I mean. Please read no offense.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-04, 12:43 PM
I'm agreeing with you, you say you are just and protective but can get kind of authoritarian and dogmatic; I'm saying that I agree with you, thatís what I mean. Please read no offense.

OK, I have to see what the thing is here...

(clicks "view anyway")

...so yeah, um, it's right there, in their signature. Right there.

How has this turned into multiple posts?

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 12:46 PM
I'm agreeing with you, you say you are just and protective but can get kind of authoritarian and dogmatic; I'm saying that I agree with you, thatís what I mean. Please read no offense.
No worries, Amazon. I don't offend easily, so even if you had intended offense, I wouldn't have minded.

To say it like I said to Orcus.

I'd like everyone to be happy. I think there's absolutely room for everyone to be happy. But that means everyone has to let each other like what they like and live and let live. As long as any side is forcing their preferences onto others, I'm going to challenge that side.

It's one of the reasons I like video games. Especially with stuff like alternate outfits. Everyone can be happy. But only if they stop worrying about it being wrong for the other side to be happy about things they don't like.

I think that's the part of the whole Just and Protective thing. I used to be really bad about that Authoritarian and Dogmatic thing, but I've done a lot of growing and evolving over the past many years and I've cut those back heavily. :smallsmile:

Talakeal
2017-08-04, 12:47 PM
I recall recently where someone was complaining Sgt. Hammer (HotS) was over sexualized. She's also curvy like Mei is.

Sgt. Hammer is a curvy woman with pigtails who wears a tank top (no pun intended) into battle. Honestly that is about my ideal level of sexualization for a cheese-cake female character. But then again my "sexual fantasy" seems to be a lot closer to most people's "power fantasy" so ymmv.


And d), that this is a problem. If society treats women and men different in such a way; and makes an inherent qualifier of a woman's worth "looking good" in the process, that is, from the perspective of me and the people criticizing this, not something to simply shrug and accept.

Are you just talking about point C? Because I can't agree that men and women having different standards of beauty and fashion is a bad thing, it is a fact of nature that men and women have different bodies, it just kind of "is".

But as for point C, yeah, I can agree that this is a problem, but it is one that goes a heck of a lot deeper than fantasy art and that I wouldn't have the first clue how to solve it; right now it just seems to be a fact of life like crime, war, or poverty; either to point out specific manifestations, hard to address as a concept.

Talakeal
2017-08-04, 01:01 PM
I don't know what's your deal, we are not asking much, none of our requests are out of this world.

Here have eight things developers can do to make games less ****ty for women:

1-Avoid the Smurfette principle (don't have just one female character in an ensemble cast, let alone one whose personality is more or less "girl" or "woman.")

2- "Lingerie is not armor" (Dress female characters as something other than sex objects.)

3- Have female characters of various body types

4- Don't over-emphasize female characters' rear ends, not any more than you would the average male character's.

5-Include more female characters of color.

6- Animate female characters to move the way normal women, soldiers or athletes would move.

7-Record female character voiceover so that pain sounds painful, not orgasmic.

8-Include female enemies, but don't sexualize those enemies.

Is this too much to ask? All of these things are fair and rational requests to make in my opinion. Can't see any reason anyone would have a problem with any of them.

This all seems very good. I would love #3, but when you have game designers constantly whining that it is too hard to design a single female body for a player character this is never going to happen outside of a "porn" game.


Also, #8 just feels wrong. I get the logic, but it just seems really uncomfortable and backwards to help women by reducing them to interchangeable mooks and then let the (probably male) protagonist go to town remorselessly slaughtering them by the dozens. I am not that is a game I would want to play.

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 01:02 PM
Sgt. Hammer is a curvy woman with pigtails who wears a tank top (no pun intended) into battle. Honestly that is about my ideal level of sexualization for a cheese-cake female character. But then again my "sexual fantasy" seems to be a lot closer to most people's "power fantasy" so ymmv.
Oh, I'm pretty sure the pun's intended. :smallamused:

But yeah, Hammer's sexy.

Like this girl I worked with for a while. She had long wavy blonde hair, tough and rugged. She had a personality like an ornery bull angry at the world, which made it all the more amusing for me to make her smile and laugh. She had a tendency to be a bit nihilistic and vulgar in language. She also said some eyebrow raising things on the regular, like when she was talking about how she'd like to mmmhmmm various ladies that came into the store. I once remarked, "I'm pretty sure she's strait", to which she responded "That just makes it more fun" and "bitches ain't strait, some are just more challenging than others", which left me a bit :smalleek:.

She was built like a viking goddess though. When not in uniform, she wore tank tops and wore cargo shorts and combat boots. She had thick, ripped muscles, and absolutely massive breasts that just kind of got the attention of everyone - man, woman, or beast.

There was a part of me that really would love to fight with her one time, just to see her in action. That said, I'd be a little concerned she might rage out and cause some serious damage. :smallamused:

PeglegJim
2017-08-04, 01:05 PM
It's just not the best example for this discussion. The men are a bunch of shirtless dudes and there's magic everywhere. Mortal Kombat is supposed to be about disdain for realism and moral handwringing. I mean it seems silly to whine about realism and the moral obligation to portray women as 'real fighters'. Combat heels are silly though I agree but the character modeling is off all around. It's just really disingenuous to use it as an example for well...anything really. It's an outlier.

But yes for the record I TOTALLY do martial arts while wearing exclusively corsets and high heels. It makes me feel pretty.

Ashiel
2017-08-04, 01:06 PM
But yes for the record I TOTALLY do martial arts while wearing exclusively corsets and high heels. It makes me feel pretty.
Wait, Kirsten is that you? :smallconfused:
EDIT: (Btw, this is a joke directed at a friend of mine who might be reading the thread. Don't think too heavily on it.)

S@tanicoaldo
2017-08-04, 03:13 PM
Wait, Kirsten is that you? :smallconfused:
EDIT: (Btw, this is a joke directed at a friend of mine who might be reading the thread. Don't think too heavily on it.)

Too late. :p

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 05:23 PM
Yes. I accept that fact. I for one am not actually discussing the existence of things, or even the raw numbers, though. I am mostly discussing proportionate numbers. And if the ratio of male animal characters to male characters and female animal characters to female characters is roughly similar (Which someone would have to test, but I think it probably is; I have not found men to be more likely to be depicted as animals beyond the standard fact that male characters are more likely to exist, period.
So if this chunk is irrelevant to differentiating the ratios, we are left with the vaguely humanoid characters. (I would consider also throwing out robots, but then again all too often male robots are just machine-looking while female-coded ones end up being fembots - EDI from Mass Effect, posted above, for example, or the Watchknights from guild wars. Why do those robots have boobs, exactly? Or Aliens, but then again there is somehow a tendency to have female aliens be more likely to fall under the possible spectrum of attraction than male ones (For example, the aforementioned twi'lek)) And, amongst them, there IS a disparity.

If animal characters (who I think we are taking as all being unattractive) exist in equal proportions in both genders, then animal characters would skew the overall numbers toward being more even between males and females and removing them would skew it the other way (assuming the overall numbers are not even).
So if animals are pretty much even for both genders, they are not irrelevant to differentiating the ratios - they make the numbers far more even. This effect is particularly strong if there are lots of animal characters relative to ugly non-animal characters, and I think there are.


This disparity is the problem. Not that there are no ugly/unattractive female characters; or many ugly male ones, but that there are, in equivalent situations (where theoretically attraction is possible) disproportionately more unattractive men then women. And that this disparity, since it falls along gender lines, might quite possibly be sexist.

Yes, except whether any such disparity exists to any great degree is what is under discussion. I think the fact that only three or so human hero male characters have been able to identified so far out of thousands of possibilities suggests that the numbers are pretty low for both genders.


(As for the question posed in another post of yours on what would be more feminist: I take answer c) Have female villains be unattractive, because humans and women can be that way, but at a similar rate to the heroes, as to show that there is no relation between prettiness and goodness, no matter how much culture often tries to say otherwise.)

So you would want very very few unattractive female villians because there are very very few unattractive female heroes?
I wasn't asking how things would work in a perfect world. I was asking whether, given the world we live in (with few ugly human hero characters of either gender), you would prefer to find lots of unattractive female villians, or very few?


Appearantly, looking back, fixing the link did nothing, sorry for misleading you. Maybe it still being the result of a google search throws a wrench in the gears?

As I have said, "harsh" does not mean "unattractive" in any sense, and "cute" is, while certainly a subterm of "attractive", not synoymous with it.
As for that trope?
I think this quote from the page on it might be relevant:

And then, in the examples section has this to say on how the character fits this trope:

"Cruel eyes" aren't exactly synonymous with "ugly" in my book. Still not convinced. Maybe I am just into (physically) strong and dominant women. *shrug*
Anyone else with an opinion on this character's looks to break the tie?
Hmmm, if being physcially strong means being attractive, then even fewer heroes qualify as unattractive, including even fewer male characters. I mean probably 95% or more of fictional heroes are strong.

I think it is clear from the words (and the picture) that Ayane is portrayed as unattractive, even if she does appeal to your personal preferences. But if you want a clearer example of an unattractive female human hero I suggest Brienne of Tarth from Game of Thrones.
The book explicitly labels her as ugly, so there can be no subjective discussion about whether she appeal to our particular tastes.


Revealing clothing =/= sexualisation, the thread has been over this.
I didn't know that discussion had been had (although I doubt your conclusion from is necesarily the correct conclusion), which is why I have said on several occassions that discussing whether characters are ugly is not the same as whether they are sexualised, and I am only doing the former. I may wade into the sexualisation discussion at some stage (although it seems as subjective as discussing which ice cream flavour is best), but not now.


The claim that such a disparity does not exist is not something that has been sufficiently proven
I think you have got the onus wrong here based on the widely accepted principle that "the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim"

It would be for the people claiming that there is a disparity to prove it, not the reverse.


- there have been unambiguous examples of one, but none of the other. And no matter how big, the fact that it exists at all is kind of the point. The fact that animal/non-human characters are more likely to be created in such a way as to be attractive to humans than male ones, is part of the point, and not something that can be dismissed as tangential.
Ayane is just as unambiguous as I think any of the human (in form) male hero examples given other than Quasimodo - Jonah Hex isn't totally unambiguous either, because as noted he is described as an anti-hero so is not clearly a hero. I think that I am just being more generous that you in accepting that an unattractive character is unattractive.
But, as noted above, even if Ayane doesn't qualify Brienne is just as unambiguous as Quasimodo. Both are explicity described as ugly.

If you want to go back to including non-humans then there are hundreds of characters who are generally unatttractive to humans of each gender.

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 05:27 PM
I think the ten or so examples that have been posted here aren't exactly proof either way because they're such a small sample size.

Sorry mate, I'm not following you. Which ten examples are not proof of what?


And is that second point supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"?

Not at all. It wasn't a point, only a question, and a question genuinely posed to better understand your position.

I think that participating in these sorts of threads gives people a bit of a cynical outlook where they think everyone is trying to trap them.

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 05:32 PM
Are you serious?

You are matching the monster from Beowulf:

http://www.writeups.org/wp-content/uploads/Grendel-2007-Beowulf-movie-Crispin-Glover-d.jpg

with:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTU2MDU5ODI2OV5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwODYwNjM5MQ@@._ V1_.jpg

?

I might agree that Glenn Close is not "attractive" (at least to me) in that movie. But not at the same way as the monster is. She is still following standard beaty-ideals (even if over the top, horrible kind of way.
Even in the animated version Cruella lives up to some of the "standard" ideals (thin, hour-glass figure etc. Much more so than her two henchmen. So we still have that the woman is more "attractive" than the men in the same movie:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BMTcwNTQzOTMxNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTgwNjU3NTgxMzE@._ V1_SY1000_CR0,0,1332,1000_AL_.jpg

If she had had two hot male henchmen it would be (slightly) similar to the Beowulf case.

Also:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/fd/cc/65/fdcc6525932ce4aeb01d028c462d56e0--disney-romance-disney-couples.jpg


How are you rating male/female human (not quite) heroes? The man is silly, clumsy etc, and not very "hot" other than that he has skills (as a writer). While her feats are "beauty" and "sweetness" (and money?). A very good case I might add.

Also Emma Stone is apparently to star as Cruella in an upcoming movie... So they pick "attractive" actresses for Cruella .

Ahhh, sorry I thought we were discussing the number of unattractive villians, not the degree of unattractiveness.

If we are going by degree of unattractiveness I will match your beowulf with the grand high witch from the witches, which the Ranker website ranks as the ugliest villian of all time.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/M/MV5BN2VkYjUwMjAtZjNiNy00OWY4LWEwODctNDRlYjE2NzA4YT VmXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNDUxNjc5NjY@._V1_.jpg

That misunderstanding between us (whether we were discussing numbers or degree) highlights the need to know what we are discussing before embarking. Are we still talking humans only? If we are going degree, not numbers, do we only need to pose the two pictures we have?

Floret
2017-08-04, 05:38 PM
A samurai trap who everyone assumed was a woman unless they broke through her armor (which I can proudly say didn't happen often).


I would like to point out that the word "trap", used in this context, is a transphobic/Transmysogynistic slur. If you care about such things, you might consider not using it.


Are you just talking about point C? Because I can't agree that men and women having different standards of beauty and fashion is a bad thing, it is a fact of nature that men and women have different bodies, it just kind of "is".

But as for point C, yeah, I can agree that this is a problem, but it is one that goes a heck of a lot deeper than fantasy art and that I wouldn't have the first clue how to solve it; right now it just seems to be a fact of life like crime, war, or poverty; either to point out specific manifestations, hard to address as a concept.

I am mostly talking about your point c with this, yes. That the differing standards of beauty for men and women are not purely a thing of nature; and also to a very great part cultural connotations is something I want to point out, but not something inherently harmful in and of itself, though a society with larger available/accepted spectrums for both would be more to my liking than the current one (Dresses, for example, are only culturally female; and a society where men can wear them as freely as women can would be much appriciated - just as in current western culture, women can wear pants, or suits, or tanktops.

And, sure, the problem goes deeper than Fantasy art - the problem is still-prevalent/prevailing sexism in our general culture. What to do about it? No single action will instantly solve it, but to call for change, and try to explain why change might be needed, by pointing out the discrepancies that still exist in these things; telling writers, authors, artists and other people when they - from our perspective - could do better, seems like a good place to start. Producing own stuff, if so inclined, and checking that stuff, might be a start as well, if one is so inclined (Even I sometimes find, after looking through a TTRPG adventure/run/storyarc writeup that I somehow managed to include 3/4 male characters, without any reason for that; simply because male is presented as default in our society. These things happen without malice, and unthinkingly - but they still repeat the same flaws, and can be changed, but only when noticed and looked at.)
Change will not happen by waiting for it. It never has.

Luz
2017-08-04, 05:42 PM
But that's another sexist trope, female villains have to be obsessed with beauty.

That witch has a younger and prettier form.

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 05:54 PM
Science fiction, and fantasy, primarily. To a lesser extent the kinds of historical fiction or noir that shade into those things. Like, we're in a thread about "armor designs for females" in a general roleplaying board. The examples are overwhelmingly fantasy art, videogame art, and comics. Nobody is bringing in Mark Twain and the Bronte Sisters.

Ok. Fair enough. Wihtin fantasy, sci-fi and science fiction there are thousands of human form, male, hero characters, so it shouldn't be hard to find some ugly ones, if human male heroes are sometimes portrayed as ugly. To be honest, out the thousands of human male heores, I'm surprised there aren't hundreds of ugly ones.


Narrowing it to "only human heroes" (and then moving the goalposts by stipulating "in human form") doesn't have any justification in the context of this thread. At no point has anyone else limited themselves to that narrow range, and there's no compelling reason to do so.

Perhaps you could address the justification I gave in the post you quoted, rather than merely restating your own opinion that there's no justification.


Jumped the gun here, huh?

No, I had read ahead and seen that you had some marginal ones. My "expect it will happen soon" was a signal to knowing they were coming.


Rorschach from Watchmen and Marv from Sin City.

I identified 5, your discounting of Ben Grimm and Hulk is an unjustified goalpost shift, and "neener neener, Deadpool is technically a mutant" isn't actually a real gotcha.
Bruce Banner is a human and is not clearly unattractive. Just because he can change form into something unattractive does not make him unattractive.

I have no idea what you mean by "isn't actually a real gotcha". I asked if you could come up with any ugly human hero males. Mutants probably aren't technically human, but to the extent they are, I explained that that was not what I meant - I meant human form. You may disagree with my criteria, but it is surprising to me that you have only come up with about 3 examples to meet them of the thousands and thousands of male human (form) hero characters available even in the genres you specified (your own unjustified goalpost shift).
A couple of women I have identified who fit the bill are Brienne of Tarth and Ayanne Anno.


Also, people should stop using movie and television versions of characters in an art thread. Hollywood prettying up characters like Tyrion Lannister or Wolverine is several steps removed from what this thread is about. (Though even there, women get much more reliably prettied up than men.)
Again, you are dictating what this tangent of the argument is about. Amazon and Ashiel started this line of argument (which sex had more ugly heroes) and Amazon established that TV character were part of it by her first photo being of the hobbits as depcited in film.

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 05:57 PM
Yeah, I'm fine with that, just look at dark souls, the differences between male and female armor is minimal most of the time. But that game has an enemy called Desert Sorceress and her armor set is available, she is a character that uses her sexuality as a weapon to lure the player, and that's fine because some women do use their sexuality that way, it would be a misrepresentation if they were not included, the problem is when every single piece of female equipment is the Desert Sorceress set.


Then overall I don't think we really disagree. I also think it is a good thing if there are some sexualised RPGs to satisfy those people who want them, and some non-sexualised RPGs to satisfy those people (such as yourself) who want those. Assuming that there is sufficient market for each of course.

Not commenting on Dark Souls, because I don't know it.

Luz
2017-08-04, 06:04 PM
Then overall I don't think we really disagree. I also think it is a good thing if there are some sexualised RPGs to satisfy those people who want them, and some non-sexualised RPGs to satisfy those people (such as yourself) who want those. Assuming that there is sufficient market for each of course.

Not commenting on Dark Souls, because I don't know it.

I wonder what you know.

You didn't know who Rorschach and Darth Maul were either, my friend, under what rock do you live?

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 06:13 PM
I wonder what you know.

You didn't know who Rorschach and Darth Maul were either, my friend, under what rock do you live?

The rock where people accept diversity instead of being critical of people who don't have the same interests as them.

Floret
2017-08-04, 06:18 PM
If animal characters (who I think we are taking as all being unattractive) exist in equal proportions in both genders, then animal characters would skew the overall numbers toward being more even between males and females and removing them would skew it the other way (assuming the overall numbers are not even).
So if animals are pretty much even for both genders, they are not irrelevant to differentiating the ratios - they make the numbers far more even. This effect is particularly strong if there are lots of animal characters relative to ugly non-animal characters, and I think there are.

The fact that such a chunck puts the ration closer to equity is simply a distraction from the fact that is a non-random subgroup of characters, the ration is distorted. And, if we are talking about literally millions of characters, a 1% difference in ration would still mean a whole ****ing lot.


Yes, except whether any such disparity exists to any great degree is what is under discussion. I think the fact that only three or so human hero male characters have been able to identified so far out of thousands of possibilities suggests that the numbers are pretty low for both genders.

That examples could be provided for one and not the other is still a thing, though. That alien and fantasy races are designed where the men look like this (https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/jedipedia/images/8/80/Orn_free_taa.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20060807133905&path-prefix=de)and the women like this (https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/jedipedia/images/8/8f/Ann_und_Tann_Gella.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090412222241&path-prefix=de)is a thing. That female robots get breast while male robots don't get abs or bulges is a thing.


So you would want very very few unattractive female villians because there are very very few unattractive female heroes?
I wasn't asking how things would work in a perfect world. I was asking whether, given the world we live in (with few ugly human hero characters of either gender), you would prefer to find lots of unattractive female villians, or very few?

Under those restrictions? Maybe fewer might be better, if only because Beauty=Goodness is a very scetchy trope. I am calling for a change in multiple areas, though; and would appriciat women to have more diverse representation in media. If that can only be amongst villains, that is something to be called out. I don't know if it would be a step in the right direction.
If I CAN influence, I will influence both areas. If I can't, what would theoretically be "better" from my perspective is irrelevant anyways. So... I'll go with "this restriction is a rather pointless thinking exercise".


Hmmm, if being physcially strong means being attractive, then even fewer heroes qualify as unattractive, including even fewer male characters. I mean probably 95% or more of fictional heroes are strong.

I think it is clear from the words (and the picture) that Ayane is portrayed as unattractive, even if she does appeal to your personal preferences. But if you want a clearer example of an unattractive female human hero I suggest Brienne of Tarth from Game of Thrones.
The book explicitly labels her as ugly, so there can be no subjective discussion about whether she appeal to our particular tastes.

My personal tastes were intended as a humerous aside, not the point of discussion. That one bisexual women would be attracted to muscular women is wholly irrelevant to general societal beauty standards. (Incidentally, the joke doesn't even need any of those statements about the details of my attraction to be true)
Please show me where "harsh" has a definition that can be taken to mean "ugly". I still contend that it doesn't. I still contend that this woman, drawn like this, might not be the most conventionally attractive woman, but certainly nowhere near as ugly as any of the male examples presented.

Now, Brienne of Tarth as presented in the books? Certainly is an example of an unattractive woman (As presented in the show... really I don't think Gwendoline Christie deserves that label, but a) again, my tastes are rather irrelevant and, b) with the makeup and presentation of the show she certainly isn't beautiful.).
If we take these books as examples, we can also add Tyrion Lannister and Jon Snow (as described in the books, nothing against Peter Dinklage or Kit Harrington, but especially Tyrion is described as rather gruesome, moreso without his nose; and Jon certainly not pretty). Maybe Sam, too with his girth. I am sure the books, given their tendency to not have all that many pretty characters, could provide numerous other examples.


I think you have got the onus wrong here based on the widely accepted principle that "the one who makes the claim typically has a burden of proof to justify or substantiate that claim"

It would be for the people claiming that there is a disparity to prove it, not the reverse.

Yes, though examples have been provided for the claim, that you have still to reject in a sufficiently satisfactory matter, without hiding behind shifting goalpost or strangely specific qualifiers.
Or, if it really is as easy to find an equal number of ugly, female, human heroes as it is for male ones... Please provide; Brienne counts.
So we are, counting in the three men from aSoIaF... at, what? 6:1? 5 more, please.
(And, do mind, while I remain convinced Ayane doesn't count on the point of her not being ugly, she ALSO conveniently isn't wholly human, from what I have now read. So doesn't count, according to your own criteria.)


Ayane is just as unambiguous as I think any of the human (in form) male hero examples given other than Quasimodo - Jonah Hex isn't totally unambiguous either, because as noted he is described as an anti-hero so is not clearly a hero. I think that I am just being more generous that you in accepting that an unattractive character is unattractive.
But, as noted above, even if Ayane doesn't qualify Brienne is just as unambiguous as Quasimodo. Both are explicity described as ugly.

If you want to go back to including non-humans then there are hundreds of characters who are generally unatttractive to humans of each gender.

See, the thing is, though - your arguments against the male characters counting revolve around the specifics of them being called "hero". The arguments against the female counting revolve around them deserving the label of "unattractive". There certainly seems to be a difference in degree of uglyness, even in the characters that are called ugly.

Luz
2017-08-04, 06:30 PM
The rock where people accept diversity instead of being critical of people who don't have the same interests as them.

It just strikes me as odd.

This is a RPG forum, most rpgs fans are also fans of pop culture, to see someone who is so alien to iconic concepts, itís really weird.

What are you fan of?

What movies do you as a reference for you adventures?

What brings you here?

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 07:06 PM
The fact that such a chunck puts the ration closer to equity is simply a distraction from the fact that is a non-random subgroup of characters, the ration is distorted. And, if we are talking about literally millions of characters, a 1% difference in ration would still mean a whole ****ing lot.
I think you underestimate the extent of the skew. In the genres you specified, I think that the majority of heroes who are unattractive (to humans) are animal characters, so the skew would be large).


That examples could be provided for one and not the other is still a thing, though. That alien and fantasy races are designed where the men look like this (https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/jedipedia/images/8/80/Orn_free_taa.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20060807133905&path-prefix=de)and the women like this (https://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/jedipedia/images/8/8f/Ann_und_Tann_Gella.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090412222241&path-prefix=de)is a thing. That female robots get breast while male robots don't get abs or bulges is a thing.

I'm not sure if those are hero characters you link to, or just background characters. But I think they are both unattractive to most humans. Remember, we are talking about whether character are unattractive to humans (to humans being your specification), not whether they are sexualised, or look like attractive versions of their own species.


Under those restrictions? Maybe fewer might be better, if only because Beauty=Goodness is a very scetchy trope. I am calling for a change in multiple areas, though; and would appriciat women to have more diverse representation in media. If that can only be amongst villains, that is something to be called out. I don't know if it would be a step in the right direction.
If I CAN influence, I will influence both areas. If I can't, what would theoretically be "better" from my perspective is irrelevant anyways. So... I'll go with "this restriction is a rather pointless thinking exercise".

The exercise, was to identify whether ugly female/male human villians DO exist in the real world context of not many ugly human male/female heroes existing. I just asked the person who proposed the exercise whether they would think the existance of ugly female villians (again in the context of how many ugly heroes do exist) was a good thing or a bad thing.
You have confirmed that you think lots of ugly female villians would be a bad thing.

Of course, I understand that if we were talking about what changes we would like to see made to depictions in media, it would be silly to change just villianesses in isolation.


My personal tastes were intended as a humerous aside, not the point of discussion. That one bisexual women would be attracted to muscular women is wholly irrelevant to general societal beauty standards. (Incidentally, the joke doesn't even need any of those statements about the details of my attraction to be true)
Please show me where "harsh" has a definition that can be taken to mean "ugly". I still contend that it doesn't. I still contend that this woman, drawn like this, might not be the most conventionally attractive woman, but certainly nowhere near as ugly as any of the male examples presented.
When I typed 'harsh' into google, the very first definition that arose was "unpleasantly rough or jarring to the senses". Given the additional context of her wishing she was cuter, I think that that is the definition of harsh which was meant.


Now, Brienne of Tarth as presented in the books? Certainly is an example of an unattractive woman (As presented in the show... really I don't think Gwendoline Christie deserves that label, but a) again, my tastes are rather irrelevant and, b) with the makeup and presentation of the show she certainly isn't beautiful.).
If we take these books as examples, we can also add Tyrion Lannister and Jon Snow (as described in the books, nothing against Peter Dinklage or Kit Harrington, but especially Tyrion is described as rather gruesome, moreso without his nose; and Jon certainly not pretty). Maybe Sam, too with his girth. I am sure the books, given their tendency to not have all that many pretty characters, could provide numerous other examples.
Great. We have agreement on one thing at least - Brienne (per the books) is an example of a hero human female who is ugly. Whether Gwendoline Christie is ugly or not isn't really the point, as you note, the way she is depicted in the TV show is as being ugly (other characters reference it in the TV show.

I can agree with Tyrion as being a ugly male human (he is a dwarf, but a human dwarf not a fantasy dwarf, so I think he counts) in both the books and the show (again Diinkalge isn't necesarily unattractive, but the character is portrayed as being so). I think Sam qualifies as unattractive too. The problem with both is that I am not sure they qaulify as heoric portrayals. Tyrion is conniving, Sam is cowardly and neither have anything other than accidental success in combat. I guess it depends what you mean by heroic, they are probably both borderline.

Jon Snow is certainly heroic, but I don't recall him being described as ugly (and he is certainly not protrayed that way in the tv series). The Wiki says this about his appearance (the comments are all referenced to the books):
"Jon has more Stark-like features than any of his half-brothers.[3] He is graceful and quick, and has a lean build.[4] Jon has the long face of the Starks,[5][6] with dark,[4][6] brown hair[7][8] and grey eyes[6] so dark they almost seem black.[4] Because he looks so much like a Stark, Tyrion Lannister notes that whoever Jon's mother was, she left little of herself in her son's appearance.[5] Out of all the Stark children, Arya Stark is said to resemble Jon the most, as Robb, Sansa, Bran and Rickon take after their Tully mother, Catelyn.[9] During the Great Ranging, Jon temporarily grows a beard."
http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Jon_Snow

Nothing in there suggests he is unattractive. It says he is lean, which suggests an attractive build, but nothing suggests to me that his facial features are particularly attractive or unattractive. Are you able to reference your opinion that he is portrayed as clearly unattractive?



Yes, though examples have been provided for the claim, that you have still to reject in a sufficiently satisfactory matter, without hiding behind shifting goalpost or strangely specific qualifiers.
Or, if it really is as easy to find an equal number of ugly, female, human heroes as it is for male ones... Please provide; Brienne counts.
So we are, counting in the three men from aSoIaF... at, what? 6:1? 5 more, please.
(And, do mind, while I remain convinced Ayane doesn't count on the point of her not being ugly, she ALSO conveniently isn't wholly human, from what I have now read. So doesn't count, according to your own criteria.)

Ayane appears human, and I can't find a thing on the internet that suggests she is not. Can you please provide a reference to her not being human. Also what do you mean by her not being "wholly" human, do you mean she has a human parent and an inhuman parent?

My rejections may not be satisfactory to you, but they are to me. One of the pitfalls of internet argument.

By my count (still using Ayane, I will give you 1/2 out of Sam and Tyrion) we are 4:2. How does that compare to the proportion of characters who are male overall? Probably pretty similar I think. Of course if we included animal characters we would probably be at 104:82 or something (see how they skew things).


See, the thing is, though - your arguments against the male characters counting revolve around the specifics of them being called "hero". The arguments against the female counting revolve around them deserving the label of "unattractive". There certainly seems to be a difference in degree of uglyness, even in the characters that are called ugly.

As to the qualification "hero", that wasn't mine, it pre-existed my entry into this argument. But if we removed that qualificaiton and any background character counted, we would simpy be posting hundreds of pictures back and forth to one another, which would not inform us about proportions in the slightest. We need some qualifier - I guess hero was chosen because Amazon/Ashiel wanted to discuss characters who have a large role in the story and are protrayed very positively - maybe the unspoken hypothesis is an ugly man can still be a hero but an ugly female cannot. Perhaps 'protagonist' would have served as well as a filter, perhaps not depending on exactly what point the two of them had in mind.

I don;t think there's any difference in degrees of attractiveness (actually I think some of those proposed as ugly males fall well short - see Jon Snow). Both of the female heroes I have referred to are not based on my subjective opinion (based on my own subjective opinion I would have had more) but about descriptive text in the book.character page etc.

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 07:10 PM
It just strikes me as odd.

This is a RPG forum, most rpgs fans are also fans of pop culture, to see someone who is so alien to iconic concepts, itís really weird.

What are you fan of?

What movies do you as a reference for you adventures?

What brings you here?

I am a fan of most of the things you mention (sci-fi, fanatasy, RPGs) although perhaps not to the same extent as some people here. Not really of the superhero genre though and not really comics or anime where many of the examples you are surprised I didn;t know appear to arise from.

I came here after I googled a question about DnD, found the answer in a thread on this forum. Followed a link in that thread the the OotS webcomic, really liked the comic and then started posting.

How about you?

Luz
2017-08-04, 07:33 PM
I am a fan of most of the things you mention (sci-fi, fanatasy, RPGs) although perhaps not to the same extent as some people here. Not really of the superhero genre though and not really comics or anime where many of the examples you are surprised I didn;t know appear to arise from.

I came here after I googled a question about DnD, found the answer in a thread on this forum. Followed a link in that thread the the OotS webcomic, really liked the comic and then started posting.

How about you?

So you are a sci-fi fan but you never watched Star wars?

pres_man
2017-08-04, 07:42 PM
So you are a sci-fi fan but you never watched Star wars?

To be fair, Darth Maul is from the worst Star Wars movies, and it is entirely rational for a true fan to never desire to see such a horrible travesty.

Keltest
2017-08-04, 08:01 PM
To be fair, Darth Maul is from the worst Star Wars movies, and it is entirely rational for a true fan to never desire to see such a horrible travesty.

In as much as that is true, Darth Maul has entered public consciousness enough to be fairly recognizable. The only way you could really have avoided him is to be a fan of the original trilogy and then actively avoided any other star wars media.

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 08:06 PM
So you are a sci-fi fan but you never watched Star wars?

As I said, I like Sci-Fi, but probably not as much as some here. I am not a huge Star Wars fan - I have seen 4 or 5 of the movies, but not one that featured Darth Maul. I recognise the name as being from Star Wars, but I clearly didn't recognise the picture.

Am I comformant enough with your standards of fandom, that I am allowed to remain on these forums?

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-04, 08:28 PM
As I said, I like Sci-Fi, but probably not as much as some here. I am not a huge Star Wars fan - I have seen 4 or 5 of the movies, but not one that featured Darth Maul. I recognise the name as being from Star Wars, but I clearly didn't recognise the picture.

Am I comformant enough with your standards of fandom, that I am allowed to remain on these forums?

Holy crap are you seriously going to passive-aggressively suggest that these people are GATEKEEPING because you're surprisingly unfamiliar with a very well-known pop-culture character?

Lower the shields, captain. No one is attacking you.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-04, 08:29 PM
Are we really doing a whole "refute people's points by questioning their geek cred" thing?

Cause that's what this looks like.

SaurOps
2017-08-04, 08:40 PM
Holy crap are you seriously going to passive-aggressively suggest that these people are GATEKEEPING because you're surprisingly unfamiliar with a very well-known pop-culture character?

Lower the shields, captain. No one is attacking you.

Except that someone totally was. Cover up Gaslighting by glossing it over with a Good Clean Fun veneer much?

Liquor Box
2017-08-04, 08:43 PM
Holy crap are you seriously going to passive-aggressively suggest that these people are GATEKEEPING because you're surprisingly unfamiliar with a very well-known pop-culture character?

Lower the shields, captain. No one is attacking you.

Yes, I was originally, after Luz's first post to me was to ask me if I knew anything, and inquire what rock I lived under.

Now I am going to further and say it directly. Because when I suggested to her that she was gatekeeping (as you put it), she didn't say "no, I'm not, I was just a little surprised" she continued to question me including asking why I am even here. When I answered here as to why I am here she implied that I am lying about being a sci-fi fan.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-04, 10:19 PM
Yes, I was originally, after Luz's first post to me was to ask me if I knew anything, and inquire what rock I lived under.

Now I am going to further and say it directly. Because when I suggested to her that she was gatekeeping (as you put it), she didn't say "no, I'm not, I was just a little surprised" she continued to question me including asking why I am even here. When I answered here as to why I am here she implied that I am lying about being a sci-fi fan.

I honestly didn't read it that way even a little. It comes across to me as pure disbelief. At no point was your credibility commented on. Just a general "how did you even get here while still missing that?"

I understand some people have never seen starwars at all. I lived in Paraguay for two years. Most people there have a very limited understanding of the outside world due to extreme poverty. Star Wars never really took off there because of it. Meanwhile The Simpsons is sitting on that pedestal of "legendary media everyone has seen." I'm not kidding. Paraguay is apparently managing to get double-digit visitation percentages at the Simpsons website, despite having a lower population than my home city.

That random trivia aside, I'm honestly just not seeing the justification for passive aggressive accusations of gatekeeping. Call me blind or whatever, but I was honestly also curious how you'd missed that, and your story was informative. Notice how the issue has been dropped since, because curiosity was satisfied.

I really don't see the justification unless you're looking for it. >.>

2D8HP
2017-08-05, 12:35 AM
I wonder what you know.

You didn't know who Rorschach and Darth Maul were either, my friend, under what rock do you live?


Oh I want to play too!

I still don't really know you Rorschach is (some comic book character), and I have never seen any of the post 1980's Star Wars films.

Further, I barely know anime, and what I do know is old:


Thanks for the tip, but....

Confession:
While I have watched some anime (I particularly remember Nausicaš of the Valley of the Wind), and my son loves Naruto, I can never remember, nor can I imagine actually asking for anime recommendations (maybe ask my older son what we should get for his little brother someday?).



Nope, I've only seen two "Anima" movie's one was 1984's Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, and the other was 1979's Galaxy Express 999.

Some other genre related films I've seen have been:

1958's Seventh Yoyage of Sinbad,

1977's Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger,

1977's The Hobbit (cartoon),

1978's The Lord of the Rings (cartoon)

1980's Hawk the Slayer,

1981's Dragonslayer,

1981's Excalibur,

1982's Conan the Barbarian,

1982's The Sword and the Sorcerer,

1984's Conan the Destroyer.

2001's The Fellowship of the Ring, and

2002's The Two Towers.


Please, please, please, question my cred!


:roach:

Viking dragon riders =Awesomicity x 1000 (https://www.howtotrainyourdragon.com/tv/riders-of-berk)


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qT8jCTUqgzg&itct=CBoQpDAYASITCOSsxaOSxM0CFYetfgodTPgAHzIHcmVsY XRlZEj9_qDs8czXsq0B

Fellow playgrounders, with the DEEPEST HUMILITY, having done the EXTENSIVE RESEARCH (reading forum threads, looking in the PHB to see if the SIMUwhatsit spell was in there, and a Wikipedia article at lunch), and having the CREDENTIALS (within the space of a year I saw the Hobbit cartoon on channel 5 without missing any of it to go to the bathroom, I looked at the Dungeons and Dragons box at the toystore in the mall, and saw Stars Wars the most times of everyone in 5th grade, no way did Ben see it 15 times, where are the ticket stubs huh?) to answer the conundrum asked in this thread about Dragonslayin' (just sayin').
Because:
1) It has been shown.that 750 light crossbow wielding guards have a fair chance against a 20th level Wizard.
2) A 20th level Wizard is so infused with awesome that they can take on an Ancient Red Dragon using the SIMUwhatsit spell, causing the DM to declare "rocks fall everybody dies" including said Wizard and Dragon.
3) Longbow archers beat the stuffing out of Crossbowmen especially just after it rains, and they don't need to waste a stinkin' feat neither!
I have therefore concluded that one Longbow archer has a fair chance to defeat an Ancient Red Dragon provided there is a Wizard near who looks suspiciously like Dave Arneson the co-creator of D&D on the left side of the box, and that an archer will definitely defeat the said Dragon if he listens to the talking bird. (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qT8jCTUqgzg&itct=CBoQpDAYASITCOSsxaOSxM0CFYetfgodTPgAHzIHcmVsY XRlZEj9_qDs8czXsq0B)
However without the Wizard Dave or the advice of the talking bird, then no amount of archers can prevail against the Awesome Dragon and Laketown is toast.
-YOUR WELCOME

No I don't know exactly what you consider qualifications for "geekdom", but by Christmas of 1977, I had seen Star Wars (I will never call it "A New Hope" ever!) multiple times in movie theaters, saw the Hobbit cartoon when it was first broadcast, and had the original 1977 Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set in my hands, plus I had William Shatner (maybe you've heard of Captain Kirk?) sign a record album for me, and I had used a computer at the Lawrence Hall of Science, that used butcher paper to print out text, instead of a newfangled video screen.

But I don't know who Rorschach is.

Do you still question my cred?

Is helped by my standing in line for over seven hours to see Raiders of the Lost Ark the weekend it got to the California 3 theatre on Kitredge Street (Berkeley, California) in 1981?

I have a question for you:

Do you recognize this?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/3262337/i-ve-seen-things-o.gif

I doubt you were even born when I heard those words.

When the OP started this thread and asked:

"So I was wondering, over the few editions of D&D, how did armor look for female characters?

I'd imagine it got a bit more modest as the years went by, considering D&D's audience in the early years..."

..

Since I count myself as a part of "D&D's audience in the early years", I thought to contribute to this thread, even though I don't recognize a particular comic book superhero/villain/another/whatever.

Do you question what I'm doing here and think that I don't belong?

Satinavian
2017-08-05, 12:36 AM
It just strikes me as odd.

This is a RPG forum, most rpgs fans are also fans of pop culture, to see someone who is so alien to iconic concepts, itís really weird.

What are you fan of?

What movies do you as a reference for you adventures?

What brings you here?You know, this is primarily a (fantasy) RPG forum.
RPGs are quite international today and we have contributers from all over the world. That is even more true for video games.

But superhero comics are still mostly an US thing. Most entries into pop culture or geek culture that come from superhero comics are not really part of those cultures elsewhere. This has changes slightly with the load of really expensive superhero movies lately, but it is still more or less true. As a result comic culture is american, video game culture and rpg culture are not.


I have been a bit iffy about discussing female representation in comics, RPGs and video games at the same time as if those somehow originate in the same culture for the whole thread. Now that you have pointet out that you think someone should recognize a character like Rorschach ... do you actually think those comics were translated and published in lots of other countries ? Do you think, teens with at best a teneous grasp of school English tend to order comics of heroes they don't know from oversee ? Until a very recent movie he was basically completely unknown elsewhere.
Until recent movies most non american geeks didn't even know who Captain America is and unsurprisingly they still don't care about him at all.


Aside from that, even though Star Wars is known in a bigger part of the world, not every geek has to have seen every movie.



Do you recognize this?

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view3/3262337/i-ve-seen-things-o.gif
That might be a fair comparison to the Darth Maul guy, but Rorschach is far more obscure.

Ashiel
2017-08-05, 01:50 AM
I would like to point out that the word "trap", used in this context, is a transphobic/Transmysogynistic slur. If you care about such things, you might consider not using it.
Some might think so. Others, including myself, might not. I appreciate your concern, however. Thanks.

Liquor Box
2017-08-05, 02:29 AM
I honestly didn't read it that way even a little. It comes across to me as pure disbelief. At no point was your credibility commented on. Just a general "how did you even get here while still missing that?"

That random trivia aside, I'm honestly just not seeing the justification for passive aggressive accusations of gatekeeping. Call me blind or whatever, but I was honestly also curious how you'd missed that, and your story was informative. Notice how the issue has been dropped since, because curiosity was satisfied.

I really don't see the justification unless you're looking for it. >.>

You may nit see the justification, but you do not sit in sole authority on the issue. I see several others seemed to have perceived it the same way I did. I point out again that when I first implied to Luz that it seemed to me she was suggesting i had to have the same geek knowledge she does to post here, she did not reply "that's not what I meant", but instead went ahead with her questions. If you don't see that, well then you and I will have to agree to disagree.

In terms of criticising passive aggresive behaviour, I suggest that people in glass houses should not throw stones. I refer you to your post 788:

I love the attempted character assassination here and accusing me of a thing this guy literally just did to me.

I can only hope to one day be this classy and refined.


Other than that I think Satinavian has probably got the right of it. I am not from USA (although I am from an English speaking country) and certainly the comic books are not at all big here (they are probably actually hard to get). I'm sure the star wars movies have all been screened, but if you hadn't to have seen the movie(s) with Darth Maul you probably wouldn't have heard of him, because here he is not a well known pop-icon (like Darth Vader, for instance, is).

Floret
2017-08-05, 03:58 AM
I'm not sure if those are hero characters you link to, or just background characters. But I think they are both unattractive to most humans. Remember, we are talking about whether character are unattractive to humans (to humans being your specification), not whether they are sexualised, or look like attractive versions of their own species.

No clue, either, but that was not the point. The point was more general: There is a disparity in the depiction of male and female characters when it comes to attractiveness. The fact that there are alien species designed with this sort of disparity illustrates that disparity.
(You are right, "being attractive members of their own species" is irrelevant, but female Twi'lek are generally considered attractive by humans. Just try googling it. Maybe turn safe search off for added impact and clarity.)


When I typed 'harsh' into google, the very first definition that arose was "unpleasantly rough or jarring to the senses". Given the additional context of her wishing she was cuter, I think that that is the definition of harsh which was meant.

I have never seen "harsh" in that context applied to anything other than sound or maybe texture, tbh. A human might have a harsh voice, yes, but beyond that, applied to humans, I very reflexively go to the second definition: cruel, severe, merciless; etc. While that is not a physical characteristic, personality traits can be used as physical descriptors in a metaphorical way meaning "looks like they have that personality trait". Given that the full sentence calling her harsh is this:

Despite her harsh appearance, it's at least partially show, and though she doesn't mind being thought of as cool and badass, Ayane has a secret (or not-so-secret, but rarely believed) desire to be 'cute'.
I find my interpretation far more likely - uglyness cannot ever be "show". You cannot turn that off - but you could turn off presenting a certain personality trait outward. To boot, looking at this sentence again, "cute" is set in direct contention with "badass", not with "harsh".


Great. We have agreement on one thing at least - Brienne (per the books) is an example of a hero human female who is ugly. Whether Gwendoline Christie is ugly or not isn't really the point, as you note, the way she is depicted in the TV show is as being ugly (other characters reference it in the TV show.

I can agree with Tyrion as being a ugly male human (he is a dwarf, but a human dwarf not a fantasy dwarf, so I think he counts) in both the books and the show (again Diinkalge isn't necesarily unattractive, but the character is portrayed as being so). I think Sam qualifies as unattractive too. The problem with both is that I am not sure they qaulify as heoric portrayals. Tyrion is conniving, Sam is cowardly and neither have anything other than accidental success in combat. I guess it depends what you mean by heroic, they are probably both borderline.

Yes, a human with dwarfism does count as a human. Indeed. This is not a matter of you thinking, this is a matter of facts. In the books, his unattractiveness goes way beyond just that dwarfism.
Ah, so now the problem is heroic? I thought we were talking about heroes in the sense of protagonists. How exactly do you define heroic? Good in physical combat, pure of heart, open with their intentions? Because if so, you are getting far, far more arbitrary than I thought. Both are presented as protagonists, and as characters the reader is supposed to identify with. Characters to root for, to agree that if they succeeded at their goals, the world would probably become a better place. They definitely qualify on that front.
I don't think one needs to be a knight in shining armor to fully qualify as a hero. I mean, if we restrict this even further on classical heroic traits, we're eventually gonna get "attractive" in there and lead this whole discussion completely to ridiculousness.


Jon Snow is certainly heroic, but I don't recall him being described as ugly (and he is certainly not protrayed that way in the tv series). The Wiki says this about his appearance (the comments are all referenced to the books):
"Jon has more Stark-like features than any of his half-brothers.[3] He is graceful and quick, and has a lean build.[4] Jon has the long face of the Starks,[5][6] with dark,[4][6] brown hair[7][8] and grey eyes[6] so dark they almost seem black.[4] Because he looks so much like a Stark, Tyrion Lannister notes that whoever Jon's mother was, she left little of herself in her son's appearance.[5] Out of all the Stark children, Arya Stark is said to resemble Jon the most, as Robb, Sansa, Bran and Rickon take after their Tully mother, Catelyn.[9] During the Great Ranging, Jon temporarily grows a beard."
http://awoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/Jon_Snow

Nothing in there suggests he is unattractive. It says he is lean, which suggests an attractive build, but nothing suggests to me that his facial features are particularly attractive or unattractive. Are you able to reference your opinion that he is portrayed as clearly unattractive?

Oh, something does: "More stark-like features than any of his half-brothers", and "the long face of the Starks", incidentally. This feature is, while that didn't carry over into the Show (Visual adaptations oftentimes "prettyfy" characters), in the books described with a clear connotation of "unattractive", even sometimes called "horse-like". And, yeah, that might count up Arya alongside him, the girl really isn't described as pretty.


Ayane appears human, and I can't find a thing on the internet that suggests she is not. Can you please provide a reference to her not being human. Also what do you mean by her not being "wholly" human, do you mean she has a human parent and an inhuman parent?

My rejections may not be satisfactory to you, but they are to me. One of the pitfalls of internet argument.

By my count (still using Ayane, I will give you 1/2 out of Sam and Tyrion) we are 4:2. How does that compare to the proportion of characters who are male overall? Probably pretty similar I think. Of course if we included animal characters we would probably be at 104:82 or something (see how they skew things).

You can't? It's right there on the page you first linked her with:

Ayane lives in a mansion with her two oddly-unaging butlers Jervis and Jeeves, who have raised her since she was a child, and who hide the secret that Ayane is not entirely human, even from her. Ayane also has a kitten, Nin-nin, who finds her scary-but-cool.
(As for details on this, I had no clue the character even existed before you mentioned her, any information I have on her is gleaned from the same sites you sent me to.)
Incidentally, the TvTropes page also mentioned her not making the cut as a Face, and since the Pokemonfandom and TvTropes have taught me wrestling terms, "Face" is synonymous with "hero", there. Meaning her unnerving eyes disqualify her from being one. This makes three for three counts of her inclusion being at least sketchy, as per your rules (Not unambiguously ugly; not unambiguously human; not unambiguously a hero).

Also, @everyone, can we please stop discussing people's geek cred and come back to the topic? Because, even though I fervently disagree with Liquorbox on everything else they write, I must join the people feeling that them not knowing all "relevant" geekthings was implied to at least lessen the importance of their opinion, if not in intention, certainly in presentation and possible impact.

Liquor Box
2017-08-05, 06:50 AM
No clue, either, but that was not the point. The point was more general: There is a disparity in the depiction of male and female characters when it comes to attractiveness. The fact that there are alien species designed with this sort of disparity illustrates that disparity.
(You are right, "being attractive members of their own species" is irrelevant, but female Twi'lek are generally considered attractive by humans. Just try googling it. Maybe turn safe search off for added impact and clarity.)

When you say "generally considered attractive to humans" do you mean that most humans who are attracted to females are also attracted to twilek females, or do you mean that they are fetishised by a small group? I mean I can see some sexualised pictures of them, but that suggests the latter, not the former.


I have never seen "harsh" in that context applied to anything other than sound or maybe texture, tbh. A human might have a harsh voice, yes, but beyond that, applied to humans, I very reflexively go to the second definition: cruel, severe, merciless; etc. While that is not a physical characteristic, personality traits can be used as physical descriptors in a metaphorical way meaning "looks like they have that personality trait". Given that the full sentence calling her harsh is this:

I find my interpretation far more likely - uglyness cannot ever be "show". You cannot turn that off - but you could turn off presenting a certain personality trait outward. To boot, looking at this sentence again, "cute" is set in direct contention with "badass", not with "harsh".
Yeah, I think we have been round the mulberry bushes on this point a few times. I think it is clearly saying one thing (which is consistent with her drawn appearance), you think there;s a different metaphoric interpretation. I doubt we are going to get much further by discussing.


Yes, a human with dwarfism does count as a human. Indeed. This is not a matter of you thinking, this is a matter of facts. In the books, his unattractiveness goes way beyond just that dwarfism.
Well done, you have managed to state that you agree with me on a point, but still argue it anyway.


Ah, so now the problem is heroic? I thought we were talking about heroes in the sense of protagonists. How exactly do you define heroic? Good in physical combat, pure of heart, open with their intentions? Because if so, you are getting far, far more arbitrary than I thought. Both are presented as protagonists, and as characters the reader is supposed to identify with. Characters to root for, to agree that if they succeeded at their goals, the world would probably become a better place. They definitely qualify on that front.
I don't think one needs to be a knight in shining armor to fully qualify as a hero. I mean, if we restrict this even further on classical heroic traits, we're eventually gonna get "attractive" in there and lead this whole discussion completely to ridiculousness.

The problem with this paragraph is words like "now the problem is" and "you are getting" etc. That has been the standard from the start. Here is (post 696 on page 24) the statement that started this strai of argument - effectively that is what you and I have been arguing about and I think it is clearly not a reference to protagonists:

Being the most common. You don't generally see male heroes who are short, fat, or particularly ugly. Usually if they are ugly, it's usually a character flaw that makes them more human, sympathetic, or serves as something they're not pleased with (such as wearing a mask because your face is horrifically scarred).

Male heroes tend to be drawn like strong, tough warriors, because that's sexy. Those traits are male ideals because it's sexy. Some guys want to be sexy. Being someone that is strong and can protect others is a desirable sexual characteristic. You don't really see heroic male characters that are lanky, with stumpy faces, and look like a treadmill is their worst nightmare.


Oh, something does: "More stark-like features than any of his half-brothers", and "the long face of the Starks", incidentally. This feature is, while that didn't carry over into the Show (Visual adaptations oftentimes "prettyfy" characters), in the books described with a clear connotation of "unattractive", even sometimes called "horse-like". And, yeah, that might count up Arya alongside him, the girl really isn't described as pretty.
Come on now, surely you can see that this is a stretch. You argue that someone who is explitly described as harsh looking and not cute is not ugly, but someone who is described as above is?
So one of your quotes says he looks "more stark like than his brothers". Is Stark-like bad? Well I checked Brandon and Eddard Stark's pages to see if there were any comments on their appearances. Brandon is described as handsome. Eddard is described only as being less handsome than Brandon. Nothing there suggests that Stark like is a bad thing. Surely in stark :smallbiggrin: contrast to the very clear descriptors of Brienne's ugliness.
As for long face, google suggest that means having an unhappy or disapointed expression. While that might not attractive looks-wise, I think you'll agree that it hardly puts them in the "clearly ugly" category we have been discussing.

If there's something in the books that you want to reference, feel free, I have them.


You can't? It's right there on the page you first linked her with:

(As for details on this, I had no clue the character even existed before you mentioned her, any information I have on her is gleaned from the same sites you sent me to.)
Incidentally, the TvTropes page also mentioned her not making the cut as a Face, and since the Pokemonfandom and TvTropes have taught me wrestling terms, "Face" is synonymous with "hero", there. Meaning her unnerving eyes disqualify her from being one. This makes three for three counts of her inclusion being at least sketchy, as per your rules (Not unambiguously ugly; not unambiguously human; not unambiguously a hero).
Ok. Fair play, I am going to have to concede this one

I wonder if part of the reason we seem to be talking accross one another is that you have chimed in late (as did I, although not so late). You rally against criteria like "heroic" as irrelevant, because they are irrelevant to the points you are trying to make, despite the fact that they may have been relevant to the points Amazon and Ashiel were debating.

As such, I suggest that instead of continuing to extend the debate on someone else's point, I would be happy to discuss your point with you. You merely need pose it. I warn you though, I may simply agree with you, which would make the conversaiton a bit boring.

Floret
2017-08-05, 07:24 AM
As such, I suggest that instead of continuing to extend the debate on someone else's point, I would be happy to discuss your point with you. You merely need pose it. I warn you though, I may simply agree with you, which would make the conversaiton a bit boring.

Very well, as to not loose ourselves completely in minutia of discussing examples instead of points:

My point for my involvement in discussions like this rests on a few core assumptions:
1) I am a feminist. I choose this descriptor, because I believe men and women should be afforded equal opportunities and treatment from society; and in extension, that society be drawn up in such a way as that everyone can live the life they want (as long as they are not hurting others by doing it), without pressures to conform to misguided norms about how men or women "should" behave.
2) That this state is not the current state of society; not even in western countries.
3) That media, as a part of society and a large part of how we, as a society, communicate, has the power to shape, reinforce or sometimes change the way people see the world, and is thus relevant.
4) That the way media portrais men and women is not only a reflection of society; but can, due to changing it, influence society for the better (or worse).
5) That certain factors about media portrayal should be changed to bring society on the path to one that more closely reflects the ideal outlined in 1). This is especially relevant when media has a disparity in its treatment of male and female characters, which stands in direct contention with 1).
And, maybe 6) That the right action to achieve that change involves multiple courses of action; including being vocal about wanting to see change, where and why; helping creators that produce content more to one's own liking by information and (financial) support (Including explicit statements for WHY that support happens); producing own media more closely reflecting ones own ideals if possible (Really not that easy); calling out people on non-ideal portrayals to get rid of unintentional reinforcment of negative messages. It should not include censorship; but people telling you your work could be better, or even that it is offensive, and calling you out on your biases is not censorship.

This is the framework I am working with.
Within that framework, more specific criticisms involve:
1) Women are less likely to be portrayed at all.
2) Women are less likely to be portrayed as protagonists to an even greater degree.
3) Portrayals of women are more limited than those of male characters; or at the very least a much larger degree of female characters fall under the same body and character types than with men - meaning that even though the variance might technically cover the same spectrum, there is a larger skew towards the "center".
4) This skew involves the portrayal of women more likely to be focussed on their appearance (And looking good/sexy); more likely to be supporting characters; more likely to fullfill "passive" roles.
(My criticism for the portrayal of female armor specifically is mostly a subcategory of criticism number 4) (focus on looking good/sexy).)

...I think that should be rather comprehensive; and I will refrain from arguing the finer points of your post - I feel I could, but you are right, it wouldn't get us anywhere.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-05, 08:23 AM
Except that someone totally was. Cover up Gaslighting by glossing it over with a Good Clean Fun veneer much?

In general that's their "shtick" on the forums.

"What you said doesn't mean what you think you meant. What you read doesn't mean what you think it said. And it's all your fault."

kraftcheese
2017-08-05, 09:03 AM
In general that's their "shtick" on the forums.

"What you said doesn't mean what you think you meant. What you read doesn't mean what you think it said. And it's all your fault."
It's like banging your head against a brick wall. Except you might make a dent in a brick wall.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-05, 10:03 AM
In terms of criticising passive aggresive behaviour, I suggest that people in glass houses should not throw stones. I refer you to your post 788:


Sarcasm =/= Passive Aggression

That was intended to be biting, straightforward, and obvious criticism delivered sarcastically. I'm positive it didn't work, but that wasn't the point.

As I'll note, none of the questions are unreasonable.

"What sort of movies do you like?" Is a harmless question.

"What brings you here?" Is also not exactly an accusation.

Gatekeepers play it pretty obviously when they gatekeep, IME. They don't tend to ask about your preferences, but rather quiz you about what you ought to know.

Gatekeeping:
"Do you even know the name of the creature that ate Boba Fett?"

Not Gatekeeping:
"What kind of scifi do you like, if not StarWars?"

(Also worth noting that you were the first to accuse of gatekeeping, and all other accusations followed. Unless I missed a post somewhere.)

I may not be the sole authority, but I also feel like the sole person who actually read the questions. >_>

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-05, 10:10 AM
In general that's their "shtick" on the forums.

"What you said doesn't mean what you think you meant. What you read doesn't mean what you think it said. And it's all your fault."


It's like banging your head against a brick wall. Except you might make a dent in a brick wall.

Can't counterargue my point so they go after my character. Guess you're out of logic and have to assassinate my character to get places like a bunch of middleschool children.

I'll take that as a win. Thanks for playing!

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-05, 10:27 AM
It's like banging your head against a brick wall. Except you might make a dent in a brick wall.

Indeed, it was.

Ashiel
2017-08-05, 11:59 AM
Can't counterargue my point so they go after my character. Guess you're out of logic and have to assassinate my character to get places like a bunch of middleschool children.

I'll take that as a win. Thanks for playing!
And again this is relevant (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem). :smallsmile:

2D8HP
2017-08-05, 01:24 PM
...more specific criticisms involve:
1) Women are less likely to be portrayed at all.


With the caveat that the media I'm most familiar with is older, and I'm not as "up" on newer stuff (I have little knowledge of post '80's video games for example), that seems largely true to me.


2) Women are less likely to be portrayed as protagonists to an even greater degree.


Also seems true to me.


3) Portrayals of women are more limited than those of male characters; or at the very least a much larger degree of female characters fall under the same body and character types than with men - meaning that even though the variance might technically cover the same spectrum, there is a larger skew towards the "center".


A quick look at the "Dreamboats" thread shows me that while they are some, it's much harder to find images of older (grey-haired) women, than grey-haired men, despite the majority of images being women/girls.


4) This skew involves the portrayal of women more likely to be focussed on their appearance (And looking good/sexy); more likely to be supporting characters; more likely to fullfill "passive" roles.
(My criticism for the portrayal of female armor specifically is mostly a subcategory of criticism number 4) (focus on looking good/sexy).....


To me the most iconic "sci-fi franchise" is Star Trek, and while it's less true for later stuff (Captain Janeway) the big three are Kirk, Spock, and Bones, all male, with Uhura, Rand, and Chapel being more "support" characters

One place that it seems to me that has more women protaganists lately is in novels.

While they were women Sci-fi and Swords & Sorcery authors with female protagonist in the past, such as C. L. Moore...


If your female and want to play a male PC, I suggest reading "Two Sought Adventure" by Leiber (a male author who came up with the phrase "Sword and Sorcery") and imitate Fafhrd or the Gray Mouser the first story of which was published in 1939.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/14/Two_sought_adventure.jpg

If your male and wish to play a female PC I suggest reading "Jirel of Joiry" by Moore (a female author), and imitate Jirel the first story of which was published in 1934.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/Jirel1969.jpg/220px-Jirel1969.jpg

Notice the important differences.
The male protagonist uses a sword to fight evil sorcerers, while the female protaganist uses a sword to fight evil sorcerers and sorceresses.

:wink:

OK to be almost serious, female authors seem to write more stories with both female and male characters, while male authors seem to mostly write about male characters (they are exceptions of course, Pratchett, a male author, for example has some novels with mostly female characters, but in general female authors seem to have more male characters, than male authors have female characters).

Male illustrators (especially amateur ones) seem to draw as many or more female subjects as male subjects, while female illustrators (again especially amateur ones) seem to draw mostly female subjects (again this is in general).

So we have more potential PC character illustrations that are female than male, while we have more potential PC written descriptions that are male.
This leads to horrible problems!
:amused:

After all it's just not realistic if both females and males fight Dragons! (maybe because Dragons are Fantasy?)

Ignore the haters. Play what's fun for you.

...they more often used "nom de plumes", that disguised their sex, such as "James Tiptree Jr." (Alice Sheldon), but today a quick scan of my bookshelf shows me that while most of my books from the 20th century were by men, most of the 21st century's fiction I've read is by women, which I discussed in the Is most of the better Fantasy fiction being written by women lately? (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?514285-Is-most-of-the-better-Fantasy-fiction-being-written-by-women-lately) thread.

I expect in about 20 years the written fiction of today will be influential and that we will see many more women protaganists in visual media, than we do today.

Anyone taking bets?

Amazon
2017-08-05, 04:46 PM
If animal characters (who I think we are taking as all being unattractive)

Don't ignore me please.


But let's me make one last point, When a guy who is transformed in a cat person looks like this:

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/08/85/48/0885483e95c1937249dca834af916f5a.jpg

And a girl looks like this:

https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/1/15776/4976253-cheetah618.jpg

Don't you think we have a problem?


That when you are a guy turned in a cat person you look weird with a dofus haircut and when you are a girl you become a sexy cat girl.

Liquor Box
2017-08-05, 05:09 PM
Sarcasm =/= Passive Aggression

That was intended to be biting, straightforward, and obvious criticism delivered sarcastically. I'm positive it didn't work, but that wasn't the point.
Well, in my opinion, it didn't meet its point. Intentionally or not it came accross as passive aggresive.


As I'll note, none of the questions are unreasonable.

"What sort of movies do you like?" Is a harmless question.

"What brings you here?" Is also not exactly an accusation.

If the questions are so innocuous why did you feel the need to paraphrase rather than quote precisely?


Gatekeepers play it pretty obviously when they gatekeep, IME. They don't tend to ask about your preferences, but rather quiz you about what you ought to know.

Gatekeeping:
"Do you even know the name of the creature that ate Boba Fett?"

Not Gatekeeping:
"What kind of scifi do you like, if not StarWars?"
"Under what rock do you live" strikes me as much closer to the first of you examples than the second.


(Also worth noting that you were the first to accuse of gatekeeping, and all other accusations followed. Unless I missed a post somewhere.)

I may not be the sole authority, but I also feel like the sole person who actually read the questions. >_>
As I said, even the person who wrote them didn't say they were not 'gatekeeping' (which is your word, not mine) despite me implying they were in my first reply. Instead she appeared to try to justify her gatekeeping on the basis that she had been right that I was not much of an expert of the particular genres.

Mendicant
2017-08-05, 05:38 PM
Very well, as to not loose ourselves completely in minutia of discussing examples instead of points:

This is the framework I am working with.
Within that framework, more specific criticisms involve:
1) Women are less likely to be portrayed at all.
2) Women are less likely to be portrayed as protagonists to an even greater degree.
3) Portrayals of women are more limited than those of male characters; or at the very least a much larger degree of female characters fall under the same body and character types than with men - meaning that even though the variance might technically cover the same spectrum, there is a larger skew towards the "center".
4) This skew involves the portrayal of women more likely to be focussed on their appearance (And looking good/sexy); more likely to be supporting characters; more likely to fullfill "passive" roles.
(My criticism for the portrayal of female armor specifically is mostly a subcategory of criticism number 4) (focus on looking good/sexy).)

...I think that should be rather comprehensive; and I will refrain from arguing the finer points of your post - I feel I could, but you are right, it wouldn't get us anywhere.

Liquor Box's entire argument is just niggling "finer points" with nothing particularly meaningful to show for it, so this is a good strategy. "Sam Tarly doesn't meet my continually-expanding list of criteria because he's not heroic enough" is pretty incontrovertible evidence that LB isn't arguing in good faith.

OpiumBear666
2017-08-05, 05:51 PM
From what I've seen from the 5E artwork they have really tried to cover bases of diversity and non sexualization of female characters, making them having varing body types, racial backgrounds, and proper armor coverage/ not fan service scantily clad armor as was the cliche of yesteryear for female character design in fantasy.

2D8HP
2017-08-05, 08:03 PM
That when you are a guy turned in a cat person you look weird with a dofus haircut and when you are a girl you become a sexy cat girl.


I'm reminded of an Oglaf comic (which I can't share here because Oglaf) that made a joke about how so often male monsters look "monstrous", but female monsters are drawn to look "sexy".

Well here's this, which is still somewhat https://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/images/comic_lotr95a.jpghttps://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/images/comic_lotr95b.jpg

Talakeal
2017-08-05, 08:13 PM
Can we talk some more about the whole male power fantasy thing?

I am really trying to figure out where the line is drawn and am not able to come up with anything.

If you took, say, Conan, but then changed his gender but kept everything else exactly the same, would that still be a male power fantasy?

Also, what seperates the male power fantasy from male leads of romance novels?

Keltest
2017-08-05, 08:16 PM
Also, what seperates the male power fantasy from male leads of romance novels?

Usually the lady clinging to them. Its only a power fantasy when you crush your enemies with your every movement, not your (implied) loved ones.

slachance6
2017-08-05, 09:03 PM
Usually the lady clinging to them. Its only a power fantasy when you crush your enemies with your every movement, not your (implied) loved ones.

But then what if you just changed the genders? This theoretical female Conan would still be crushing her enemies.

Keltest
2017-08-05, 09:25 PM
But then what if you just changed the genders? This theoretical female Conan would still be crushing her enemies.

I don't think crushing your loved ones is a female power fantasy either.

Unless youre a mother-in-law, I guess?

Mendicant
2017-08-05, 10:09 PM
Can we talk some more about the whole male power fantasy thing?

I am really trying to figure out where the line is drawn and am not able to come up with anything.

If you took, say, Conan, but then changed his gender but kept everything else exactly the same, would that still be a male power fantasy?

Also, what seperates the male power fantasy from male leads of romance novels?

A male power fantasy is something a male would identify and fantasize about *being*. If you switch the gender, then no, it's not really a male power fantasy.

The depictions of women that are generally objected to are first and foremost meant as something a male might fantasize about *having*, and only incidentally as something a woman or girl would want to *be*.

That both depictions include a lot of skin is beside the point. Conan, with a bloody axe and a woman hanging off of him, is qualitatively different from Red Sonja with her back arched and twisted crazily in order to show both buttcheeks and both boobs.

kraftcheese
2017-08-05, 11:17 PM
Obviously no-one ever "wins" an argument (outside of debate club I guess), but if this thread has hopefully done anything, it's brought up issues that other people might not have considered before, or considered as issues before.

kraftcheese
2017-08-05, 11:20 PM
Can we talk some more about the whole male power fantasy thing?

I am really trying to figure out where the line is drawn and am not able to come up with anything.

If you took, say, Conan, but then changed his gender but kept everything else exactly the same, would that still be a male power fantasy?

Also, what seperates the male power fantasy from male leads of romance novels?
I always felt like something being a male power fantasy was about how the character acts and is reacted to by others in the piece of media; what they get to do, how they get to drive the story, what they're shown doing if it's an image.

Also, take into account the society the media was created in, etc. My 2 cents.

1337 b4k4
2017-08-05, 11:40 PM
Can we talk some more about the whole male power fantasy thing?

I am really trying to figure out where the line is drawn and am not able to come up with anything.

If you took, say, Conan, but then changed his gender but kept everything else exactly the same, would that still be a male power fantasy?

Also, what seperates the male power fantasy from male leads of romance novels?

This is what I was trying to get at earlier when I was asking for the 3 definitions. Because I honestly can't think of any way you could sexualize a male character that doesn't usually fall under the "male power fantasy" anyway. Which then to me implies the issue is not the sexual female characters, but the fact that being sexual isn't yet a female power fantasy. I mean there are ways to portray men as emasculated, which (for at least a decent majority of males) wouldn't fall under the "power (or really any) fantasy" heading, but usually those portrayals don't fall under the sexualized category either (that is to say, an emasculated male isn't generally a female sex fantasy). So I'll ask again in case someone missed it before, if you generally believe that most of the sexualized males in media don't count because they're either completely or mostly "male power fantasy", then can you please provide the following:

A) A definition of "male power fantasy"
B) A definition or example of a "sexualized male"
C) A defintion of B which does not overlap with or generally fall under A. Ideally we want a definition that if we applied to a male media representation, you would agree that they are sexualized and not a "power fantasy", and if we swapped the genders and applied to a female media representation we would get the same result.

2D8HP
2017-08-06, 12:04 AM
But then what if you just changed the genders? This theoretical female Conan would still be crushing her enemies.


Does no one read up-thread?


So, something like this?:
http://68.media.tumblr.com/20f509b3e7f0207fef7592e2b86417bc/tumblr_ot3kq44skg1qijcczo1_1280.png


Full confession: I don't reas every post before responding either, or I would've cut more slack.

Sorry.

Talakeal
2017-08-06, 12:38 AM
Does no one read up-thread?




Full confession: I don't reas every post before responding either, or I would've cut more slack.

Sorry.

That doesnt really look like a female version of Conan to me, it seems that the artist went out of their way to make her look ugly, which I dont think has ever been the case with Conan.

She also looks very androgynous while Conan was very masculine. Of course, one could argue that turning a masculine character female would result in a masculine looking woman rather than a feminine one, depending on how you interpreted the statmenent.

But is that character really a power fantasy for anyone, male or female?

Mendicant
2017-08-06, 12:43 AM
This is what I was trying to get at earlier when I was asking for the 3 definitions. Because I honestly can't think of any way you could sexualize a male character that doesn't usually fall under the "male power fantasy" anyway. Which then to me implies the issue is not the sexual female characters, but the fact that being sexual isn't yet a female power fantasy. I mean there are ways to portray men as emasculated, which (for at least a decent majority of males) wouldn't fall under the "power (or really any) fantasy" heading, but usually those portrayals don't fall under the sexualized category either (that is to say, an emasculated male isn't generally a female sex fantasy). So I'll ask again in case someone missed it before, if you generally believe that most of the sexualized males in media don't count because they're either completely or mostly "male power fantasy", then can you please provide the following:

A) A definition of "male power fantasy"
B) A definition or example of a "sexualized male"
C) A defintion of B which does not overlap with or generally fall under A. Ideally we want a definition that if we applied to a male media representation, you would agree that they are sexualized and not a "power fantasy", and if we swapped the genders and applied to a female media representation we would get the same result.

"Sexualized" and "sexually attractive" are not the same thing. Just because a male power fantasy generally includes being good-looking is immaterial to whether or not the depicted character is being sexualized. They might be, but can just as easily not be, and even when they are they're usually pictured in an attitude of dominance.

http://uploads.neatorama.com/images/posts/257/75/75257/1409368272-1.jpg
http://uploads.neatorama.com/images/posts/257/75/75257/1409368272-2.jpg

Compare the following images:
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/3/37144/4291752-2690307803-vdovv.jpg
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/scale_super/6/68345/2261383-bruce_wayne_026.jpg

In both of these, you've got Bruce Wayne. It's the same character, with the same basic musculature and facial features. Can you identify which one is sexualized?

Floret
2017-08-06, 05:03 AM
That seems largely true to me.

I expect in about 20 years the written fiction of today will be influential and that we will see many more women protaganists in visual media, than we do today.

Anyone taking bets?

So I am not alone in my perception at least, thanks for confirming that^^
Not taking bets, but I like to be hopeful. Things are changing, for the better, generally after all. Joe Abercrombie, in his Short story collection for his Dark Fantasy setting (First Law trilogy and other books) introduced a character duo specifically intended to be female expys of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. Really nice pair, the two.


Can we talk some more about the whole male power fantasy thing?
Also, what seperates the male power fantasy from male leads of romance novels?

Comments on the male power Fantasy further down.
As for what separates the male power Fantasy from the male leads of romance novels is usually that the one was written to appeal to men, the other to appeal to women. There might be overlap, but the difference relies in some aspects on context - from the men on romance novel covers, maybe try looking at the way they are positioned (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bc/ef/ea/bcefeaea3b063de47a7b452b9b4ccd05--historical-romance-books-romance-novel-covers.jpg)in regards to the woman; and the way Conan is positioned (https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Conan-the-Barbarian.jpg)in regards to the woman is his picture.
Notice how the male lead focusses on the woman? Looks at her, holds her? Notice how Conan doesn't seem to care much for her, looks at the viewer, the woman holding onto him? If we take "Holding onto a person" as a sign of the direction of desire... We get Conan, the male power Fantasy, being desired; and the romance cover guy; desiring. (Also, tight pants. Tight clothing goes long ways towards sexualising people; a loincloth leaves lots of skin; but as probably noone will disagree - sexual characteristics being alluded to, but not fully shown, is sexy, and a loincloth fails to allude - tight pants? They do.)


This is what I was trying to get at earlier when I was asking for the 3 definitions. Because I honestly can't think of any way you could sexualize a male character that doesn't usually fall under the "male power fantasy" anyway. Which then to me implies the issue is not the sexual female characters, but the fact that being sexual isn't yet a female power fantasy. I mean there are ways to portray men as emasculated, which (for at least a decent majority of males) wouldn't fall under the "power (or really any) fantasy" heading, but usually those portrayals don't fall under the sexualized category either (that is to say, an emasculated male isn't generally a female sex fantasy). So I'll ask again in case someone missed it before, if you generally believe that most of the sexualized males in media don't count because they're either completely or mostly "male power fantasy", then can you please provide the following:

Since maybe you missed my reply to be more specific and try again in the derails that came afterwads, I shall repost it (Keep in mind, this is a reply to something from earlier, so for some of the context on specific points going back to that old post might be necessary):


It is possible for these to be overlapping, yes.
As for more detailed answers: One difference is the focus. Is the focus primarily on looking good (A), or on being strong (B)?
The second difference is in the detail of "What men think women find attractive" and "What women find attractive" being two categories with overlap, but not synonymous. The two depictions of Hugh Jackman were intended to exemplify that. Or maybe this comic (http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/) that had been linked already far earlier in this thread. Men like to think women care as much about them being insanely muscled badasses, but... the depiction of pure muscle, as for example on Conan or Kratos (very naked men) isn't as generally attractive to women, for example, as the also depicted nice cleavage and thin waistline on women to men.

As for that equivalence... Yeah, I would probably not count that character as sexualised. Or, maybe I would - see, the problem is, "womanlyness" and "manlyness" have very, very different connotations (Some of them disquialify a "strong, capable" character that makes you feel strong as being the epitome of "womanlyness"). What has been constructed as gender roles has men as acting, women as reacting party. So a man fullfilling all the things society says men should be is an active person; a woman... looks pretty and waits for the man. Maybe cooks for him.

Lara Croft is a curious example. Because, really, especially in the most recent games, I really, really wouldn't call her sexualised. Even in the old ones, "reasonable shorts and Tanktops" is at the rather low end of "sexy" clothes. Sure, there are some midriff-baring outfits here and there, but in general, the culture surrounding it sexualised Lara Croft far more than the games ever did (I don't count giant breast as sexualisation).

Maybe trying this...
A sexualised male character will be designed in such a way that the outfit overemphasises the character's attractiveness at the cost of situational/versimilitudinal logic; more than the equivalent female characters. Focusses on the characters sexual characteristics and physical desirability (In a broad sense; butt, bulge in the pants and a toned figure or attractive/pretty face are things that I would count here) over their other attributes and skills.

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 05:19 AM
Very well, as to not loose ourselves completely in minutia of discussing examples instead of points:

My point for my involvement in discussions like this rests on a few core assumptions:
1) I am a feminist. I choose this descriptor, because I believe men and women should be afforded equal opportunities and treatment from society; and in extension, that society be drawn up in such a way as that everyone can live the life they want (as long as they are not hurting others by doing it), without pressures to conform to misguided norms about how men or women "should" behave.
2) That this state is not the current state of society; not even in western countries.
3) That media, as a part of society and a large part of how we, as a society, communicate, has the power to shape, reinforce or sometimes change the way people see the world, and is thus relevant.
4) That the way media portrais men and women is not only a reflection of society; but can, due to changing it, influence society for the better (or worse).
5) That certain factors about media portrayal should be changed to bring society on the path to one that more closely reflects the ideal outlined in 1). This is especially relevant when media has a disparity in its treatment of male and female characters, which stands in direct contention with 1).
And, maybe 6) That the right action to achieve that change involves multiple courses of action; including being vocal about wanting to see change, where and why; helping creators that produce content more to one's own liking by information and (financial) support (Including explicit statements for WHY that support happens); producing own media more closely reflecting ones own ideals if possible (Really not that easy); calling out people on non-ideal portrayals to get rid of unintentional reinforcment of negative messages. It should not include censorship; but people telling you your work could be better, or even that it is offensive, and calling you out on your biases is not censorship.

This is the framework I am working with.
Within that framework, more specific criticisms involve:
1) Women are less likely to be portrayed at all.
2) Women are less likely to be portrayed as protagonists to an even greater degree.
3) Portrayals of women are more limited than those of male characters; or at the very least a much larger degree of female characters fall under the same body and character types than with men - meaning that even though the variance might technically cover the same spectrum, there is a larger skew towards the "center".
4) This skew involves the portrayal of women more likely to be focussed on their appearance (And looking good/sexy); more likely to be supporting characters; more likely to fullfill "passive" roles.
(My criticism for the portrayal of female armor specifically is mostly a subcategory of criticism number 4) (focus on looking good/sexy).)

...I think that should be rather comprehensive; and I will refrain from arguing the finer points of your post - I feel I could, but you are right, it wouldn't get us anywhere.

Well spoken. I agree with some points/assumptions you make but not others. I think a lot of it is just to broad to discuss though.

A few questions which can serve as points for further discussion.
1. Do you think men and women should be portrayed equally in all genres regardless of audience? For example, I think romance novels tend to a large female audience relative to male audience - if it turns out that most protagonists in romance novels are women, is that problematic. Likewise the reverse, if there was a genre where the audience was predominantly male, would it be ok for most of the point of view characters to be mostly male?

2. Do agree with Amazon that it is ok for some games (games were the example her and I used) within a genre to portray women sexually (for the benefit of people who want that) so long as there are some games within the genre that don't (so you and others like you can enjoy the game without seeing women so portrayed)?

If I understand your third and fourth point correctly, you find it problematic that women are disproportionatly portrayed as attractive. Am I right about that? If so I have two questions about it:

3. Is you concern that women are more frequently portrayed as attractive in media than the prevelance of attractive women in real life. I'm assuming that some attractive women is ok. What should it be in proportion to - the proportion of attractive women in real life (assuming similar circumstances)?

4. If someone were able to persuade you that males were overwhelmingly portrayed as attractive - to a similar extent to women (I realise you are not likely to be persuaded of this, so think of it as a hypothetical for yourself, or a real exercise for those who think men are similarly portrayed as attractive), would you concerns be assuaged? In that hypothetical (for you) would that mean that (a) by being protrayed as overwhelmingly attractive both men and women are being done a disservice; (b) because both men and women are being portrayed the same way as each other, there is no problem; or (c) it is still only women who suffer because [reasons]?

Edit: BTW, sorry for the slow reply.

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 05:27 AM
Liquor Box's entire argument is just niggling "finer points" with nothing particularly meaningful to show for it, so this is a good strategy. "Sam Tarly doesn't meet my continually-expanding list of criteria because he's not heroic enough" is pretty incontrovertible evidence that LB isn't arguing in good faith.

What is actually a failure to argue in good faith is to mischaracterise what I have done. To be heoric was no expansion on a list of criteria, but the very point between Ashiel and Amazon from the start. I quote Ashiel's comment that started the strain of the argument again (with my added emphasis). I think it is pretty clear that she is talking about heroes


Being the most common. You don't generally see male heroes who are short, fat, or particularly ugly. Usually if they are ugly, it's usually a character flaw that makes them more human, sympathetic, or serves as something they're not pleased with (such as wearing a mask because your face is horrifically scarred).

Male heroes tend to be drawn like strong, tough warriors, because that's sexy. Those traits are male ideals because it's sexy. Some guys want to be sexy. Being someone that is strong and can protect others is a desirable sexual characteristic. You don't really see heroic male characters that are lanky, with stumpy faces, and look like a treadmill is their worst nightmare.

Whether you agree with the criteria or not. It surprised me that a handful of people found it so hard to come up with examples of human form, male hero characters who are clearly ugly. To be fair some people did limit themselves to certain genres (before I get piloried for that, it was not my limitation). But still, I think there were three and there was some doubt about some of those - that is out of probably thousands of human form male heroes. I am coming from the same place as you, I expected people to be able to identify many more even within the narrow criteria.

Edit:
After discontinuing discussing it with Floret, I happened accross some more ugly hero women, besides Brienne:

http://img05.deviantart.net/b6c3/i/2010/136/a/f/boa_marigold_3_by_akimaa.jpg
This is Boa Marigold - her wiki text describes her as heroic
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/0f/a5/73/0fa573b3aeb4b7b5ceaa7d6bf117a49b.jpg
This is Big Bertha. The wiki page clearly states that she is part of a hero team. She is listed as human mutant, which would qualify her under my criteria because her form is still human (not humanoid), like Wolverine. I suspect you may want to quibble on her human-ness though, and I am not of a mind to argue, so exclude her if you will.
https://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/8/83063/2006091-monstress18.jpg
Monstress. Her heroic status isn't in doubt because her group is the "legion of Superheros". Her humanness is again the difficulty, she is listed as metahuman which is defined as "In DC Comics, the term is used loosely in most instances to refer to any human-like being with extranormal powers and abilities, be they technological, alien, mutant, or magical in nature" (so i think is what spiderman would be). Under my criteria she passes because her form is human, but again not minded to argue the toss too much
There are a few more, but I will only post them if you are interested.

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 06:05 AM
Don't ignore me please.

I haven't ignored you. I am pretty good at replying to all posts directed at me (and I think you may have not replied to a couple of mine directed at you), its just that I dodn't think your post was directed at me because it wasn't a reply to me.

Anyway, happy to chat, but perhaps you could elaborate as to what your point it. Whenever you originally made the post, its context may have been obvious, but now all I see is a picture of non-sexualised male anthrmorphic cat, and a sexualised female anthromorphic cat. I assume there is some implied suggestion from you that the two pics are representative? If so what are you saying about it?

Satinavian
2017-08-06, 07:17 AM
A male power fantasy is something a male would identify and fantasize about *being*. If you switch the gender, then no, it's not really a male power fantasy.
I have always rejected this whole "male pwer fantasy argument.

It sounded to me like another true-Scotsman dismissal dismissal of all counterexamples to sexualized women, People bringing it always seemed profoundly dishonest.

But recently i recognized why this argument never sounded convincing to me : I could never see a male power fantasy in the discussed pictures. And the reason is not necessarily that none is there, but that i, despite being a heterosexual male, simply don't share this knind of fantasy. Like not at all.

Muscular men have never impressed me and i never have fantasised about physical power. My male power fantasy looks like this :http://www.agentsofguard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/shiroe.pngAnd that is the only reason why i could not recognize, what others could see in those pics.

But thinking about it, i must ask :


Most of the people bringing the "male power fantasy" are not actually male. It is likely that Conan-lookalikes are not their kind of power fantasy either. Where you they get the certainty, that those barebreasted muscle guys in winning poses are actually a power fantasy for a significant portion of men ? How could they know ?

I mean, it is obvious that outdated gender ideas mandate from men to strife for physical strength and define themself through it. But that is only gender, a cultural expectation, not an accurate description of actual humans.

So while those pics obviously propagate some stupid idea about masculinity and might even celebrate that idea, they are not necessarily a power fantasy. Also they are not really that different from pictures promoting stupid ideas about femininity and celebrate those ideas, while many women don't necessarily share them.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-06, 08:34 AM
If the questions are so innocuous why did you feel the need to paraphrase rather than quote precisely?

Because I'm on mobile and multiquoting is a pain in the backside when you have big thumbs. (The little icon is tiny) so I did my best to quote accurately. Is the slight difference in wordchoice really making a big difference?



"Under what rock do you live" strikes me as much closer to the first of you examples than the second.

I take it you are also unfamiliar with that relatively common saying used when someone doesn't know about a thing usually assumed to be common knowledge, and which is not an insult, slight, or knowledge challenge. Well, now you know!



As I said, even the person who wrote them didn't say they were not 'gatekeeping' (which is your word, not mine) despite me implying they were in my first reply. Instead she appeared to try to justify her gatekeeping on the basis that she had been right that I was not much of an expert of the particular genres.

This is the worst argument. Specifically because they didn't come back to deny the accusation, it must be accurate?
That's some 18th century witchhunt logic, right there. On par with the "there's nothing to suggest it ISN'T aliens" thing conspiracy theorists do. Come on. Be better than this.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-06, 08:54 AM
I have always rejected this whole "male pwer fantasy argument.

It sounded to me like another true-Scotsman dismissal dismissal of all counterexamples to sexualized women, People bringing it always seemed profoundly dishonest.

But recently i recognized why this argument never sounded convincing to me : I could never see a male power fantasy in the discussed pictures. And the reason is not necessarily that none is there, but that i, despite being a heterosexual male, simply don't share this knind of fantasy. Like not at all.

Muscular men have never impressed me and i never have fantasised about physical power. My male power fantasy looks like this :

http://www.agentsofguard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/shiroe.png

And that is the only reason why i could not recognize, what others could see in those pics.

But thinking about it, i must ask :


Most of the people bringing the "male power fantasy" are not actually male. It is likely that Conan-lookalikes are not their kind of power fantasy either. Where you they get the certainty, that those barebreasted muscle guys in winning poses are actually a power fantasy for a significant portion of men ? How could they know ?

I mean, it is obvious that outdated gender ideas mandate from men to strife for physical strength and define themself through it. But that is only gender, a cultural expectation, not an accurate description of actual humans.

So while those pics obviously propagate some stupid idea about masculinity and might even celebrate that idea, they are not necessarily a power fantasy. Also they are not really that different from pictures promoting stupid ideas about femininity and celebrate those ideas, while many women don't necessarily share them.


Just as the artist or the marketing director can believe that a certain depiction of women panders to "most men's" conscious or subconscious sexual triggers (even if it doesn't), they can also believe that a certain depiction of men panders to "most men's" conscious or subconscious self-image triggers (even if doesn't).

Or it may simply be a reflection of their own feelings about the matters, which they're unthinkingly incorporating into the artwork, and projecting onto other people.

Or it may be that they're playing to the tropes and styles established in past examples of the artwork for similar things.

Mendicant
2017-08-06, 09:01 AM
What is actually a failure to argue in good faith is to mischaracterise what I have done. To be heoric was no expansion on a list of criteria, but the very point between Ashiel and Amazon from the start. I quote Ashiel's comment that started the strain of the argument again (with my added emphasis). I think it is pretty clear that she is talking about heroes

There's nothing in there that indicates they have to be human, or in human form, but that hardly stopped you. You can't invoke the prior discussion only when it suits you. It's dishonest post-hoc gatekeeping.

Sam Tarly is a major POV character who overcomes his fear to slay one of the setting's most terrifying monsters and rescue a girl, and then sets out on a sea voyage to uncover lost knowledge. He transparently takes the hero's journey. So do Tyrion, the Hound, Ben Grimm, Rorschach, Jonah Hex, and any number of other characters you tried to nitpick away. All in service of what point, exactly? What does limiting the sample to "male heroes who are human and in "human form" and who meet Liquor Box's arbitrary standard for appropriately heroic" actually tell us about, well, anything?

Male heroes, as in male protagonists, pretty obviously inhabit a much wider range of ages, body types, and attractiveness levels.


Also Boa Marigold is an antagonist who tries to kill the series' protagonist for discovering that she and her sisters didn't actually do the heroic thing they claim to have done, and Big Bertha is a fashion model who only looks like that when she's in combat. If Hulk doesn't count, neither does she. Monstress is a space alien.

Tobtor
2017-08-06, 09:27 AM
I have always rejected this whole "male pwer fantasy argument.

As Conan is brought up as an example quite often of a "barely clad" male, I will take him as a case: In growing up I never found any woman/girl in my schools, workplaces etc, who thought Arnold Schwarzenegger was "hot". Arnold had mainly male "fans". Not that every man was a fan. Not all fans really wanted to look like him, but his appearance was catering a male audience and not a female one. He was though of as "cool" and "strong" by (some) men. Not by any women. Contrary to the heroines where generally (again: not by all) thought to be "hot" by the male audience.

This is aspect A of male power.-fantasies. That the guys depicted have (straight) male fans, and the women depicted have (straight) male fans. Aspect B is the portrayal of them: They are always posing in a way that signify strength and competence, while the women (even if strong and skilled) is posing "sexy". Is there exceptions? Possible, but the trend is very clear.

Ashiel
2017-08-06, 11:59 AM
As Conan is brought up as an example quite often of a "barely clad" male, I will take him as a case: In growing up I never found any woman/girl in my schools, workplaces etc, who thought Arnold Schwarzenegger was "hot". Arnold had mainly male "fans". Not that every man was a fan. Not all fans really wanted to look like him, but his appearance was catering a male audience and not a female one. He was though of as "cool" and "strong" by (some) men. Not by any women. Contrary to the heroines where generally (again: not by all) thought to be "hot" by the male audience.

This is aspect A of male power.-fantasies. That the guys depicted have (straight) male fans, and the women depicted have (straight) male fans. Aspect B is the portrayal of them: They are always posing in a way that signify strength and competence, while the women (even if strong and skilled) is posing "sexy". Is there exceptions? Possible, but the trend is very clear.

The most pure of male power fantasies. A strong, cold heartless monster, learns to love and overcomes an even greater cold heartless monster to protect a child and mother. He understands why you cry. And sacrifices himself to save everything.
http://www.overthinkingit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/terminator_t2_judgment_day_thumbs_up_01-590x251.jpg

Keltest
2017-08-06, 12:06 PM
The most pure of male power fantasies. A strong, cold heartless monster, learns to love and overcomes an even greater cold heartless monster to protect a child and mother. He understands why you cry.
http://www.overthinkingit.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/terminator_t2_judgment_day_thumbs_up_01-590x251.jpg

Are you just looking for excuses to post images at this point? Because I'm not entirely certain what it is youre trying to contribute to the discussion.

Ashiel
2017-08-06, 12:25 PM
Are you just looking for excuses to post images at this point? Because I'm not entirely certain what it is youre trying to contribute to the discussion.
You just don't understand what I'm trying to contribute to the discussion because you haven't yet fully interpreted my posts through the correct critical social theory lens. First you need to determine what the demographics of those who like my posts are, especially in relation to their sex, sexuality, age, skin color, religious and political affiliation. Similarly, you need to then discern the demographics of those who dislike my posts under much the same fashion. From there, you can determine what my posts are intending to add to the conversation, and whether or not the posts are intended as self insert erotic fiction, an other power fantasy, or a rallying call to the sexual liberation of robots.

You probably couldn't trust me if I told you anyway, since even if I'm the creator of the posts and say I'm just having fun posting sexy pictures, I'm probably secretly trying to turn children into robots who ride motercycles with shotguns.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/85/Terminator2poster.jpg

2D8HP
2017-08-06, 12:56 PM
So I am not alone in my perception at least, thanks for confirming that^^
Not taking bets, but I like to be hopeful. Things are changing, for the better, generally after all. Joe Abercrombie, in his Short story collection for his Dark Fantasy setting (First Law trilogy and other books) introduced a character duo specifically intended to be female expys of Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser. Really nice pair, the two.

Thanks for the tip!

My favorite bookseller recommended Joe Abercrombie to me, but his works just seemed like they'd be too "grim-dark" for my taste, I'll take a second look.

Incidentally, Joanna Russ in her 1967 short story "Bluestocking" has her heroine Alyx (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adventures_of_Alyx) reminisce about Fritz Leiber's character "Fafhrd" (an old favorite of mine), and Leiber in his 1968 story "The Two Best Thieves in Lankhmar" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swords_Against_Wizardry) includes an appearance by Joanna Russ's heroine Alyx!

Yes, old Sci-Fi/Swords & Sorcery had stuff like the "Gor" novels (no links on purpose), but I think it was also for more "inclusive"/"progressive" than it gets credit for.

Mendicant
2017-08-06, 01:04 PM
My favorite bookseller recommended Joe Abercrombie to me, but his works just seemed like they'd be too "grim-dark" for my taste, I'll take a second look.

There's a good bit of grimdarkness to them, but even though that isn't 100% to my own taste either, they're well-written enough that it'd be a waste to pass them up. Personally, I actually liked his sequel books better than the main trilogy, because he seems to be having more fun with those.

Talakeal
2017-08-06, 01:23 PM
Still confused about the whole power fantasy vs. sexualization thing. Maybe it is because I am a trans-questioning man, but I really am having trouble telling the difference.

Out of curiosity, how would you define this picture:


http://heartofdarknessrpg.com/barbarian.jpg

To me it seems to be a sort of cross between stereotypical Sword and Sorcery and Romance novels, albeit with the gender flipped.

Where does this fall on the sexualization vs. power fantasy scale?

Mendicant
2017-08-06, 04:05 PM
Where does this fall on the sexualization vs. power fantasy scale?

These two things do not exist on an opposed continuum.

Floret
2017-08-06, 05:04 PM
Well spoken. I agree with some points/assumptions you make but not others. I think a lot of it is just to broad to discuss though.

A few questions which can serve as points for further discussion.
1. Do you think men and women should be portrayed equally in all genres regardless of audience? For example, I think romance novels tend to a large female audience relative to male audience - if it turns out that most protagonists in romance novels are women, is that problematic. Likewise the reverse, if there was a genre where the audience was predominantly male, would it be ok for most of the point of view characters to be mostly male?

2. Do agree with Amazon that it is ok for some games (games were the example her and I used) within a genre to portray women sexually (for the benefit of people who want that) so long as there are some games within the genre that don't (so you and others like you can enjoy the game without seeing women so portrayed)?

If I understand your third and fourth point correctly, you find it problematic that women are disproportionatly portrayed as attractive. Am I right about that? If so I have two questions about it:

3. Is you concern that women are more frequently portrayed as attractive in media than the prevelance of attractive women in real life. I'm assuming that some attractive women is ok. What should it be in proportion to - the proportion of attractive women in real life (assuming similar circumstances)?

4. If someone were able to persuade you that males were overwhelmingly portrayed as attractive - to a similar extent to women (I realise you are not likely to be persuaded of this, so think of it as a hypothetical for yourself, or a real exercise for those who think men are similarly portrayed as attractive), would you concerns be assuaged? In that hypothetical (for you) would that mean that (a) by being protrayed as overwhelmingly attractive both men and women are being done a disservice; (b) because both men and women are being portrayed the same way as each other, there is no problem; or (c) it is still only women who suffer because [reasons]?

Edit: BTW, sorry for the slow reply.

1. Mostly I'd not consider that a problem, yeah. Probably, in an ideal setting, the numbers would be proportionate to the actual demographics of the target group; and not fall into the trap of "more women read this, so female protagonists exclusively".
2. I do not argue against women being portrayed as sexy. As long as it is one option amongst a range of them, I won't be opposed. If the situation were as such as there were games which are exclusively doing good, and such that were exclusively doing skeevy, I probably would still sideeye the skeevy ones, but might not be so opposed.
3. That would probably be a good point for an ideal world, yes. Being brought closer to reality might be good enough at some point, i dunno.
4. If you can show me evidence that I am wrong, I will change my beliefs. Noone has managed to do that, and from all I have seen of pop culture, I doubt anyone can, but I just wanna point out I will try my best to notrefuse listening to facts.
With that out of the way... a), somewhat willing to lean towards b). It would have solved the problem of inequality in representation; but not the (somewhat less important, I find) one of unattractive people lacking representation.


I have always rejected this whole "male pwer fantasy argument.

It sounded to me like another true-Scotsman dismissal dismissal of all counterexamples to sexualized women, People bringing it always seemed profoundly dishonest.

But recently i recognized why this argument never sounded convincing to me : I could never see a male power fantasy in the discussed pictures. And the reason is not necessarily that none is there, but that i, despite being a heterosexual male, simply don't share this knind of fantasy. Like not at all.

Muscular men have never impressed me and i never have fantasised about physical power. My male power fantasy looks like this :
http://www.agentsofguard.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/shiroe.png
And that is the only reason why i could not recognize, what others could see in those pics.

But thinking about it, i must ask :

Most of the people bringing the "male power fantasy" are not actually male. It is likely that Conan-lookalikes are not their kind of power fantasy either. Where you they get the certainty, that those barebreasted muscle guys in winning poses are actually a power fantasy for a significant portion of men ? How could they know ?

I mean, it is obvious that outdated gender ideas mandate from men to strife for physical strength and define themself through it. But that is only gender, a cultural expectation, not an accurate description of actual humans.

So while those pics obviously propagate some stupid idea about masculinity and might even celebrate that idea, they are not necessarily a power fantasy. Also they are not really that different from pictures promoting stupid ideas about femininity and celebrate those ideas, while many women don't necessarily share them.

Personal preferences of single people are... tangentially relevant at most. I mean, for the discussion about sexualisation, if anyone didn't find the resulting pictures sexy wouldn't really matter, either - this is talking a societal thing, which you do recognize, if I understand you correctly.
And the thing is... A lot of people do try to emulate gender roles. Possibly most people. I don't know any studies done on how much the things usually referred to as a power Fantasy are actually in line with the distribution of actual power Fantasies of men; but from sale numbers and followings (Tobtor gave a nice example) my conclusion would lean towards it actually BEING more or less in line.

Some men not sharing in general societal ideas of how you (should) feel powerful as a man does not subtract from the fact that as far as I can see, many more do. Or, at least, marketing people think they do, and sales numbers might prove them right - the same way some women not liking the kind of guy portrayed in those romance novels discussed (I for one mostly think "uhm... no thanks?") does not really take away the fact that the men portrayed are somewhat sexualized.
At this point, you'd need studies. Does anyone have studies?


Thanks for the tip!

My favorite bookseller recommended Joe Abercrombie to me, but his works just seemed like they'd be too "grim-dark" for my taste, I'll take a second look.

Well, they certainly are Dark Fantasy, done in a rather extreme, bloody, and dark way. Yeah, they might be classified as grimdark, and if that is not your thing, staying away might be good - but I can really recommend them, and their writing style. I must agree with the latter books being better than the trilogy, but reading them in publishing order has certain benefits. The pair of characters appears in "Sharp Ends", a short story collection referencing all of the six other books.



Still confused about the whole power fantasy vs. sexualization thing. Maybe it is because I am a trans-questioning man, but I really am having trouble telling the difference.

Out of curiosity, how would you define this picture:


http://heartofdarknessrpg.com/barbarian.jpg

To me it seems to be a sort of cross between stereotypical Sword and Sorcery and Romance novels.

Where does this fall on the sexualization vs. power fantasy scale?

Well, keeping in mind my comments on Conan and Romance covers, let's apply the things I outlined there:


As for what separates the male power Fantasy from the male leads of romance novels is usually that the one was written to appeal to men, the other to appeal to women. There might be overlap, but the difference relies in some aspects on context - from the men on romance novel covers, maybe try looking at the way they are positioned (https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/bc/ef/ea/bcefeaea3b063de47a7b452b9b4ccd05--historical-romance-books-romance-novel-covers.jpg)in regards to the woman; and the way Conan is positioned (https://www.counter-currents.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Conan-the-Barbarian.jpg)in regards to the woman is his picture.
Notice how the male lead focusses on the woman? Looks at her, holds her? Notice how Conan doesn't seem to care much for her, looks at the viewer, the woman holding onto him? If we take "Holding onto a person" as a sign of the direction of desire... We get Conan, the male power Fantasy, being desired; and the romance cover guy; desiring. (Also, tight pants. Tight clothing goes long ways towards sexualising people; a loincloth leaves lots of skin; but as probably noone will disagree - sexual characteristics being alluded to, but not fully shown, is sexy, and a loincloth fails to allude - tight pants? They do.)

The central character looks at the viewer, and the woman is clinging onto her, making the central character be the one that is desired; but that being shown (by her looking away) to be not the focus of her character, but almost incidental. On those points, she fits in perfectly in line with the power Fantasy. (Also, her pose is realistic, not focussing on pronouncing her sexual characteristics, but instead just being a solid, strong standing position.)
I would probably subtract points for the fact that the breasts of muscular women don't work like that, and the fact that the clothing (The panties, if there is enough there to call them that) is figure-enhancing in a way closer to those of the Romance cover leads rather than Conan (Who has his crotch region just covered up, instead of pronounced); but generally I'd say this falls a lot more on the side of the power Fantasy.

Also, much success on that questioning; I hope you find and answer soon - and support and acceptance, whatever that answer might be :smallsmile:

Orcus The Vile
2017-08-06, 05:30 PM
On the sexualization and power fantasy lookign the same:

Does this:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/72/c0/c6/72c0c6a93dd7609482febde798880f44--sexy-guys-sexy-men.jpg

Look the same as this?
https://cdn.muscleandstrength.com/sites/all/themes/mnsnew/images/taxonomy/athletes/bodybuilders.jpg

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 06:47 PM
Because I'm on mobile and multiquoting is a pain in the backside when you have big thumbs. (The little icon is tiny) so I did my best to quote accurately. Is the slight difference in wordchoice really making a big difference?

I take it you are also unfamiliar with that relatively common saying used when someone doesn't know about a thing usually assumed to be common knowledge, and which is not an insult, slight, or knowledge challenge. Well, now you know!

I am well familiar with the saying. To me, it implies that the person didn't know something they should have known. Probably even more so that "Do you even know the name of the creature that ate Boba Fett?" (which is what you gave as a classic example of gatekeeping). Of course my interpretation of the phrase isn't decisive, but I also not that:
- Everyone else who has commented (other than you) seems to have a view more consistent with mine than yours (albeit, not specifically with respect to that phrase, but instead with respect to the overall conversation)
- I googled it, and this is what I came up with "Living under a rock is a nice recent English idiom meaning ďbeing oblivious or ignorant to what happens in the outside worldĒ. It is used to describe a person who doesnít know something any ďnormalĒ human being is supposed to know". So that is probably even stronger than how I understood it.


This is the worst argument. Specifically because they didn't come back to deny the accusation, it must be accurate?
That's some 18th century witchhunt logic, right there. On par with the "there's nothing to suggest it ISN'T aliens" thing conspiracy theorists do. Come on. Be better than this.

Hmmm. The worst argument, but one that is relied on in court frequently.

Here there is reason to believe that Luz was gatekeeping. Then I suggested it to her (admittedly implicitly). In those circumstances an expected response might be to say "no I am not" (if that was the case), but she chose not to do that. A closer analogy might be the policeman saying to suspect X "Witness Y said she saw you murdering Victim Z" (implying of course that suspect X did murder victim Z), and suspect X responds "Yeah well victim Z was a real [expletive]". In this example, like in my exchange with Luz, the lack of a denial suggests that suspect X/Luz did do what they were implicitly accused of.


At the end of the day though, it does come down to interpretation. You have interpreted it one way, everyone else who has commented (largely people who have broadly disagreed with me in this thread) has interpreted another. You could consider whether your interpretation might be flawed, or you could stick to your guns and assume that every single person who commented except you (but presumably including me) commented without even reading Luz's posts. I know which conclusion is more rational, but it is up to you which one you draw. I don;t think we are going to be able to persuade each other any further though.

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 06:50 PM
On the sexualization and power fantasy lookign the same:

Does this:
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/72/c0/c6/72c0c6a93dd7609482febde798880f44--sexy-guys-sexy-men.jpg

Look the same as this?
https://cdn.muscleandstrength.com/sites/all/themes/mnsnew/images/taxonomy/athletes/bodybuilders.jpg

I think, to use the definition given earlier, that most men would want to be (or at least look like) the first, since he is conventionally better looking. Does that mean the first is the power fantasy?

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 07:54 PM
There's nothing in there that indicates they have to be human, or in human form, but that hardly stopped you. You can't invoke the prior discussion only when it suits you. It's dishonest post-hoc gatekeeping.

No, there's nothing. In the passage I was quoting you complained about the heroic constraint so that's the one I addressed. It was always part of the discussion.

I suggested afterward that pictures of inhuman creatures weren't valuable to the discussion because we could not know whether some inhuman creature is attractive by the measures of its own race. If we were including inhuman creatures there would be numerous from each gender, and we would have no way to tell if they are clearly ugly or not (there being no conventional standard of beauty for many inhuman creatures. See for example, Judy Hopps
https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/disney/images/e/e6/Judy_Hopps_pose_render.png/revision/latest?cb=20160327100919

Whether you agree with my reasoning or not (you haven't actually addressed the underlying reasons despite me having put them to you several times), it is not dishonest, because I have not disguised the suggested criteria as something it is not.


Sam Tarly is a major POV character who overcomes his fear to slay one of the setting's most terrifying monsters and rescue a girl, and then sets out on a sea voyage to uncover lost knowledge. He transparently takes the hero's journey. So do Tyrion, the Hound, Ben Grimm, Rorschach, Jonah Hex, and any number of other characters you tried to nitpick away. All in service of what point, exactly? What does limiting the sample to "male heroes who are human and in "human form" and who meet Liquor Box's arbitrary standard for appropriately heroic" actually tell us about, well, anything?
Again, the "heroic" standard is not my own. Here it is again, from Ashiel, in the comment that kicked off the discussion:

Being the most common. You don't generally see male heroes who are short, fat, or particularly ugly. Usually if they are ugly, it's usually a character flaw that makes them more human, sympathetic, or serves as something they're not pleased with (such as wearing a mask because your face is horrifically scarred).

Male heroes tend to be drawn like strong, tough warriors, because that's sexy. Those traits are male ideals because it's sexy. Some guys want to be sexy. Being someone that is strong and can protect others is a desirable sexual characteristic. You don't really see heroic male characters that are lanky, with stumpy faces, and look like a treadmill is their worst nightmare.

Here's waht hero means according to wikipedia "A hero (masculine) or heroine (feminine) is a person or main character of a literary work who, in the face of danger, combats adversity through impressive feats of ingenuity, bravery or strength, often sacrificing their own personal concerns for a greater good."

To me it seems reasonably clear from that that Ashiel was meaning actual heroes, in the conventional sense. I expect the reason that she was referring to heroes was that the word "hero" suggest a positive portrayal, as oppose to an ordinary protagonist (eg Homer Simpson) who can be portrayed negatively. The point being males who are portrayed positively (heroically) are rarely ugly because ugliness is not a trait associated with heroism even amongst males. Amazon replied suggesting that Ashiel was wrong and male heroes were indeed sometimes portrayed as ugly, which is where this discussion kicked off.

If you don't like the criteria, by all means suggest a different set (if any) and what you think would be implied. I may be happy to have a discussion based on a different set of criteria.


Male heroes, as in male protagonists, pretty obviously inhabit a much wider range of ages, body types, and attractiveness levels.
In terms of humans, can you justify that. because you haven't been able to so far.


Also Boa Marigold is an antagonist who tries to kill the series' protagonist for discovering that she and her sisters didn't actually do the heroic thing they claim to have done, and Big Bertha is a fashion model who only looks like that when she's in combat. If Hulk doesn't count, neither does she. Monstress is a space alien.

I could quibble - for example Hulk's final form is clearly not human (he is green) but Bertha's is or you say Monstress is a space alien, but her wiki page says she is metahuman. But I don't think there's much point. Suffice to say that the criteria (noth the hero one, and the human one)you rally against also appears to exclude many unattractive women, so it is not one which is geared in favour of a particular side of the argument. There are one or two men who clearly qualify, one woman, and several of both gender who are in contention.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-06, 08:01 PM
I am well familiar with the saying. To me, it implies that the person didn't know something they should have known. Probably even more so that "Do you even know the name of the creature that ate Boba Fett?" (which is what you gave as a classic example of gatekeeping). Of course my interpretation of the phrase isn't decisive, but I also not that:
- Everyone else who has commented (other than you) seems to have a view more consistent with mine than yours (albeit, not specifically with respect to that phrase, but instead with respect to the overall conversation)
- I googled it, and this is what I came up with "Living under a rock is a nice recent English idiom meaning ďbeing oblivious or ignorant to what happens in the outside worldĒ. It is used to describe a person who doesnít know something any ďnormalĒ human being is supposed to know". So that is probably even stronger than how I understood it.


Bandwagon fallacy. "If lots of people agree on it, they must be right."

Lots of people think MSG eats your stomach lining, and that's been disproven many, many times.



Hmmm. The worst argument, but one that is relied on in court frequently.

Here there is reason to believe that Luz was gatekeeping. Then I suggested it to her (admittedly implicitly). In those circumstances an expected response might be to say "no I am not" (if that was the case), but she chose not to do that. A closer analogy might be the policeman saying to suspect X "Witness Y said she saw you murdering Victim Z" (implying of course that suspect X did murder victim Z), and suspect X responds "Yeah well victim Z was a real [expletive]". In this example, like in my exchange with Luz, the lack of a denial suggests that suspect X/Luz did do what they were implicitly accused of.

That sentence means bupkis in a court of law. Just going to point that out. It is not admissable as evidence and does not count as a confession.

Come on.




At the end of the day though, it does come down to interpretation. You have interpreted it one way, everyone else who has commented (largely people who have broadly disagreed with me in this thread) has interpreted another. You could consider whether your interpretation might be flawed, or you could stick to your guns and assume that every single person who commented except you (but presumably including me) commented without even reading Luz's posts. I know which conclusion is more rational, but it is up to you which one you draw. I don;t think we are going to be able to persuade each other any further though.

You are correct that I'm not on the bandwagon. You are wrong in assuming the bandwagon is correct because there are lots of people on it.

Remember: most people skim rather than read. Why do you think I had to all-caps my position even aftet stating it about 7 times and people still kept assuming I was against the general idea of the thread because certain people were arguing with me?

So you're right in this regard: I'm really not gonna fall for this fallacious argument, no.

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 08:12 PM
1. Mostly I'd not consider that a problem, yeah. Probably, in an ideal setting, the numbers would be proportionate to the actual demographics of the target group; and not fall into the trap of "more women read this, so female protagonists exclusively".
2. I do not argue against women being portrayed as sexy. As long as it is one option amongst a range of them, I won't be opposed. If the situation were as such as there were games which are exclusively doing good, and such that were exclusively doing skeevy, I probably would still sideeye the skeevy ones, but might not be so opposed.
3. That would probably be a good point for an ideal world, yes. Being brought closer to reality might be good enough at some point, i dunno.
4. If you can show me evidence that I am wrong, I will change my beliefs. Noone has managed to do that, and from all I have seen of pop culture, I doubt anyone can, but I just wanna point out I will try my best to notrefuse listening to facts.
With that out of the way... a), somewhat willing to lean towards b). It would have solved the problem of inequality in representation; but not the (somewhat less important, I find) one of unattractive people lacking representation.


1. I just want to be sure I understand you. You are saying, within a genre protagonists should not be exclusively one gender, but you are ok with the proportion of protagonists of a particular gender being generally similar to the proportion of the target audience that is of that number. For example, if it turned out that 70% of the audience of daytime talk television were women (making numbers up), you would be ok if 70% of daytime talkshow hosts were also women, but not ok with 100% being women?

2a. Again a clarification. By "sideeye the skeevy ones" do you mean that you would be ok with their existence but that they are not the sort of thing you would want to play? So, no objection to them being available for people who like that sort of thing?

2b. Applying your comment "As long as it is one option amongst a range of them, I won't be opposed" to the armor design point, does this mean you have no problem with revealing female armor being one option, so long as you have the option of realistic or modest armor?

3. It appears you are concerned about women being so frequently portrayed as being attractive. I am trying to get a sense as to how many women would be portrayed as attractive in your ideal word - the example was, in similar proportion to real life. Is you "I dunno" an indication that you don't have view on how many should be attractive beyond a general "its too many now" opinion?

4a. Nobody will be able to "show you evidence that you are wrong". Attractiveness is subjective, we all disagree on what is and is not attractive (see Ayana Anno discussion), we all probably have certain biases and skews around these subject (each of us coming from a different perspective) and even if those things aren't true the most we can do is give examples, not any evidential breakdown of numbers. I think the best we (by which I mean near everyone in the thread) could ever hope for is a moderately persuasive anecdotal argument one way or the other.

4b. Why do you think the under-representation of ugly people (of either gender) is less important than the under-representation of women?

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 08:26 PM
Bandwagon fallacy. "If lots of people agree on it, they must be right."

Lots of people think MSG eats your stomach lining, and that's been disproven many, many times.

Ah, I see you misunderstand the fallacy. The bandwagon fallacy, holds that it is fallacious to say "most people think x, so x is certainly true true" (deductive reasoning), but not that it is fallacious to say "most people think x, so x is probably true" (inductive reasoning). In fact, the "most people" approach is generally quite accurate - see for example the success of the "ask the audience" lifeline in Who Wants to be a Millionaire - estimates at 95% success rate
http://millionaire.wikia.com/wiki/Ask_the_Audience

This case involves the interpretation of what someone (lux) was saying, so obviously it would not be possible to reach a certain conclusion, and I did not suggest that the preponderance of opinion suggested a certain conclusion. However, if near everyone understood a set of questions and comments to mean a certain thing, then it is perfectly valid to say that is probably what was meant.


That sentence means bupkis in a court of law. Just going to point that out. It is not admissable as evidence and does not count as a confession.

Come on.

You are wrong, it is admissible as evidence..... There is some chance we are coming from different jurisdictions here, but I would need an explicit reference to believe that an accused's answer to a policeman's question is inadmissable. Can you please provide a link to the law or case you are referencing.



You are correct that I'm not on the bandwagon. You are wrong in assuming the bandwagon is correct because there are lots of people on it.

Remember: most people skim rather than read. Why do you think I had to all-caps my position even aftet stating it about 7 times and people still kept assuming I was against the general idea of the thread because certain people were arguing with me?

So you're right in this regard: I'm really not gonna fall for this fallacious argument, no.

Covered the fallacious argument point above.

Mendicant
2017-08-06, 08:59 PM
"A hero (masculine) or heroine (feminine) is a person or main character of a literary work who, in the face of danger, combats adversity through impressive feats of ingenuity, bravery or strength, often sacrificing their own personal concerns for a greater good."

Can I nail you down on this as an objective standard for what a hero is?

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-06, 09:06 PM
Why do we even care if the character is a hero?

I mean, other than the ongoing attempts to invalidate examples... :smallconfused:

Mendicant
2017-08-06, 09:15 PM
Why do we even care if the character is a hero?

I mean, other than the ongoing attempts to invalidate examples... :smallconfused:

This entire thread is a masterclass in nitpicking small details in order to bury the obvious in minutiae.

"Oh we can't talk about non-humans because we don't know what their culture's standard for beauty is!"
"How does that invalidate Ben Grimm or the Hulk?"
"REDIRECT"

At least Calthropstu shrieking about feminazis was honest about where he was coming from.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-06, 09:26 PM
Ah, I see you misunderstand the fallacy. The bandwagon fallacy, holds that it is fallacious to say "most people think x, so x is certainly true true" (deductive reasoning), but not that it is fallacious to say "most people think x, so x is probably true" (inductive reasoning). In fact, the "most people" approach is generally quite accurate - see for example the success of the "ask the audience" lifeline in Who Wants to be a Millionaire - estimates at 95% success rate
http://millionaire.wikia.com/wiki/Ask_the_Audience

This case involves the interpretation of what someone (lux) was saying, so obviously it would not be possible to reach a certain conclusion, and I did not suggest that the preponderance of opinion suggested a certain conclusion. However, if near everyone understood a set of questions and comments to mean a certain thing, then it is perfectly valid to say that is probably what was meant.


Throwing in the word "probably" makes it 0% less fallacious reasoning.

Again, "more people in this thread agree with me, so I'm probably right" is still bad reasoning. Someone could easily use the same argument on, say, a flatearthers discussion forum. And most people there would agree the earth was flat. That makes it 0% more correct. (Hyperbolic example to prove the general point)

Thanks for playing, though.



You are wrong, it is admissible as evidence..... There is some chance we are coming from different jurisdictions here, but I would need an explicit reference to believe that an accused's answer to a policeman's question is inadmissable. Can you please provide a link to the law or case you are referencing.

I'm not digging up a law book to explain why "X person who died was an A-hole" is not an admission of guilt and cannot be used as such when, well, read it.

Admissible or not as general evidence, it remains a non-confession and inadmissible as that. (My apologies if I was unclear on my point, there.)

So would the person NOT saying "I'm innocent" and enacting their right to remain silent not admissible as a confession. (Which is more in line with your original terrible reasoning than this red herring point.)

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-06, 09:45 PM
Why do we even care if the character is a hero?

I mean, other than the ongoing attempts to invalidate examples... :smallconfused:

To bring it back to why the point was brought up, and combined with not wanting to dig through lots of backend nonsense to find the original post, I believe the original argument was thus:

By and large, (aka Generally,) male heroes are fairly muscular and attractive.
Most ugly characters are either villains, or their ugliness is used as easy comedy or tragedy fodder. As in: "Haha, the joke is I'm ugly" or "it's sad because he doesn't want to be ugly but he is."

That was the original point. For every unattractive hero whose unattractiveness is not played for cheap laughs or cheap tearjerking, there are 5 or 6 who are pretty much muscular, good looking guys.

For every Benn Grimm there is a Johnny Storm, Thor, Peter Parker, and Tony Stark.
For every Wade Wilson there is a T'challa, Peter Quill, Scott Summers, and Clark Kent.

Like it or not, the same looming phantom of "beauty standards" looms over men as well. I honestly can't remember the last time a fat guy in a movie has not had his weight be the butt of several jokes in the movie. I've seen maybe 3 movies of an unattractive guy getting a hot girlfriend despite all odds (that I can think of) but there are plenty of movies/novels about "plain" women landing hot guys. (Twilight saga, Fifty Shades, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, etc.)
(Though, in fairness, I believe the "plain/unattractive person finding a hot soulmate" thing is a fairly universal thing in romantic fiction so... I'm kinda meh on including it.)

Have you ever been to a men's underwear isle? Every photo is some guy with abs you could grate cheese with. And no, "the underwear is saying you look like that guy when you wear the underwear" doesn't work on anyone but children. No man thinks he gains abs by wearing Fruit of the Loom. It's how you OUGHT to look. GQ sells this, Mens Fitness sells this, cologne companies, underwear, clothing companies, etc. I've seen plus-sized female models. And while I'm sure they exist somewhere, I've never in my entire life seen a plus-sized male model or a picture of one. And I shop in the big-and-tall sections. Because I'm both. Never seen someone of my body shape modelling clothes. Ever.
And, I'm not complaining. Just an interesting thought I had.

Does any of the previous make objectification of women suddenly ok? No. Only an idiot would think that. Does it mean things are probably less wildly disproportionate than believed? Probably. Still sucks for everyone, though.

Maybe, just maybe, having a pissing contest over who has it worse helps nobody compared to just... acknowledging that everyone has problems and suffers at the uncaring hand of society and we can all strive to make things better for others. Crazy, I know, but I like to think it's possible to do both.

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 10:03 PM
Throwing in the word "probably" makes it 0% less fallacious reasoning.

Again, "more people in this thread agree with me, so I'm probably right" is still bad reasoning. Someone could easily use the same argument on, say, a flatearthers discussion forum. And most people there would agree the earth was flat. That makes it 0% more correct. (Hyperbolic example to prove the general point)

Thanks for playing, though.

It makes in 100% non-fallacious - check any definition of what you called the bandwagon fallacy but is more formally called argumentum ad populum.

Whether you think it is a strong argument or not, is another matter. You example doesn't help you (and is a logical fallacy itself):
- if you asked a 1000 questions, it may be that 990 of them were answered correctly (by the majority), you have just picked one of the ten that weren't answered correctly,
- You have arbitrarily skewed the people answering by asking it on a flat earthers forum (which would obviously have more people with a preconception that the earth was flat. Ask the same question in another forum which is neutral to that particular question, and you would probably get a different response.


I'm not digging up a law book to explain why "X person who died was an A-hole" is not an admission of guilt and cannot be used as such when, well, read it.

Admissible or not as general evidence, it remains a non-confession and inadmissible as that. (My apologies if I was unclear on my point, there.)

So would the person NOT saying "I'm innocent" and enacting their right to remain silent not admissible as a confession. (Which is more in line with your original terrible reasoning than this red herring point.)

No need to reference anything, your backpeddling has achieved the same ends.

You original statement was "t is not admissable as evidence and does not count as a confession." I challenged you on whether it is admissable, not whether it constituted a confession. Your reply above emphasises that there was no confession (it was never claimed to be one), but does not continue to claim the statement is inadmissable. So we no longer have any disagreement on the point.

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 10:04 PM
Can I nail you down on this as an objective standard for what a hero is?

I'm happy to treat it as such for the purposes of our conversation.

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 10:06 PM
Why do we even care if the character is a hero?

I mean, other than the ongoing attempts to invalidate examples... :smallconfused:

Well, that was the original premise.

But I'm happy to have a different conversation with you regarding different criteria (or a different sub-topic related to this thread). I earlier offered to discuss ugly villians with you.

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 10:09 PM
This entire thread is a masterclass in nitpicking small details in order to bury the obvious in minutiae.

"Oh we can't talk about non-humans because we don't know what their culture's standard for beauty is!"
"How does that invalidate Ben Grimm or the Hulk?"
"REDIRECT"

At least Calthropstu shrieking about feminazis was honest about where he was coming from.

The question above (how does that invalidate Ben Grimm or the Hulk?) was never asked, despite several invitations from me to you to respond to my reasons for suggesting excluding non-humans. If it had been asked, I would have happily answered (indeed, if it has been I will happily apologise and answer).

It's ironic that you complain about my dishonesty on the same post as saying something dishonest yourself.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-06, 10:13 PM
Well, that was the original premise.

But I'm happy to have a different conversation with you regarding different criteria (or a different sub-topic related to this thread). I earlier offered to discuss ugly villians with you.


Well, no, actually... it wasn't.

So far, it appears to be an extraneous "premise" introduced when someone wanted to "invalidate" some examples that were inconvenient for their argument.

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 10:18 PM
Well, no, actually... it wasn't.

So far, it appears to be an extraneous "premise" introduced when someone wanted to "invalidate" some examples that were inconvenient for their argument.

I think your words "appear to be" stand in proxy for "my guess is", because you could have simply gone back and checked.

Ashiel's post from 696 from page 24. This is what started the line of conversation. I don't think it was introduced to invalidate anything, in part because the post was made before any examples were introduced.


Being the most common. You don't generally see male heroes who are short, fat, or particularly ugly. Usually if they are ugly, it's usually a character flaw that makes them more human, sympathetic, or serves as something they're not pleased with (such as wearing a mask because your face is horrifically scarred).

Male heroes tend to be drawn like strong, tough warriors, because that's sexy. Those traits are male ideals because it's sexy. Some guys want to be sexy. Being someone that is strong and can protect others is a desirable sexual characteristic. You don't really see heroic male characters that are lanky, with stumpy faces, and look like a treadmill is their worst nightmare.

If you would like to repeat my interpretation of why Ashiel chose 'hero' as a criteria, I am happy to oblige.

Perhaps by "original" you mean some other discussion that preceded this post? If so, that is not the discussion I was referring to, and I don;t believe Ashiel's post was in reply to it.

I am happy continuing with all this revision. But if there is something else you want to discuss (eg male vs female ugly characters with different criteria) wouldn't that be more productive?

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-06, 10:44 PM
I think your words "appear to be" stand in proxy for "my guess is", because you could have simply gone back and checked.

Ashiel's post from 696 from page 24. This is what started the line of conversation. I don't think it was introduced to invalidate anything, in part because the post was made before any examples were introduced.


I know where/when it got lobbed into the discussion.

"Appears to be" refers to the way it "appears to be" an attempt to derail the discussion into a debate over what's a "legitimate" example, and to "invalidate" examples that were inconvenient.

Mendicant
2017-08-06, 10:50 PM
I'm happy to treat it as such for the purposes of our conversation.

Then what piece of the standard does Sam Tarly not meet?

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 10:58 PM
I know where/when it got lobbed into the discussion.

"Appears to be" refers to the way it "appears to be" an attempt to derail the discussion into a debate over what's a "legitimate" example, and to "invalidate" examples that were inconvenient.

What example preceded the post on page 24, which you think it was lobbed into the argument to invalidate?

Liquor Box
2017-08-06, 11:02 PM
Then what piece of the standard does Sam Tarly not meet?

I'm happy to address this. But first, lets be clear that this is not me leading you down the path of a nitpicking argument. I said Sam Tarly was borderline, and it is you who has asked me to settle on a definition and then hold Sam up against it. Fair enough?

Edit: Also, I have not yet seen season 7, and I don't want spoilers. If Sam does something heroic in season 7 that you think qualifies him, I will just take you word for it, and we can take him as an ugly male human hero.

Arbane
2017-08-07, 12:20 AM
That doesnt really look like a female version of Conan to me, it seems that the artist went out of their way to make her look ugly, which I dont think has ever been the case with Conan.


Ever read the original stories? Conan's described as a 'scar-faced giant of a man'. Not exactly good-looking.

Mendicant
2017-08-07, 12:24 AM
person or main character of a literary work

Check.
who, in the face of danger,

Check.
combats adversity

Check.
through impressive feats of ingenuity, bravery or strength,

Check.
often sacrificing their own personal concerns for a greater good."

Check.

These have all already been met in both the books and series, no need to spoil season 7.

Tyrion Lannister:
person or main character of a literary work

Check.
who, in the face of danger,

Check.
combats adversity

Check.
through impressive feats of ingenuity, bravery or strength,

Check.
often sacrificing their own personal concerns for a greater good."

Check.

Jonah Hex:
person or main character of a literary work

Check.
who, in the face of danger,

Check.
combats adversity

Check.
through impressive feats of ingenuity, bravery or strength,

Check.
often sacrificing their own personal concerns for a greater good."

Check.

Marv:
person or main character of a literary work

Check.
who, in the face of danger,

Check.
combats adversity

Check.
through impressive feats of ingenuity, bravery or strength,

Check.
often sacrificing their own personal concerns for a greater good."

Check.

Odysseus
person or main character of a literary work

Check.
who, in the face of danger,

Check.
combats adversity

Check.
through impressive feats of ingenuity, bravery or strength,

Check.
often sacrificing their own personal concerns for a greater good."

Check.
Etc.

It might also help for you to read up on the monomyth. It's linked in that wikipedia article you quoted. Your apparent version of a literary hero as someone who does things you subjectively tag as suitably heroic is vague and not actually nearly as "conventional" as you assume it is.

2D8HP
2017-08-07, 01:07 AM
Some further thoughts on "genre" female characters.

So in 1977 Star Wars was a big deal among my classmates (as was the now largely forgotten Bakshi's Wizards cartoon which also had Mark Hamil).

http://static.lamusica.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/13/2014/04/Star-Wars-.jpg

Star Wars briefly has Aunt Beru who is the only female character of note besides Princess Leia.

While Leia is a more active character than the re-occurring women characters on Star Trek ten years previous, Star Wars is pretty much just Carrie Fisher and a bunch of dudes.

The Hobbit cartoon (also from 1977) was overwhelmingly male characters (Saving Private Ryan has more women!).

1979's The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe cartoon had more female characters, as did 1981's Dragonslayer, but if you were a little girl in the 1970's, your Halloween costume choices would be pretty much just Isis (my future wife's choice), Wonder Women, Princess Leia, or a Witch, while the boys would have more choices (Batman, and Luke Skywalker for me).

In 1977 my favorite book was A Wizard of Earthsea, which while written by a women had a boy hero.

In 2014 my son (at the same age I was in 1977) favorite book was Wee Free Men, which while written by a man had a girl heroine.

My son loved Naruto, but since someone up thread declared that "only western counts", I'll ignore Naruto as "non-western", and go with a film that me and my son watched again last night on broadcast television, that he loved in 2014:

Big Hero 6.

https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/character_bighero6_hiro_266dba5d.jpeg?region=0,0,4 50,450&width=320
Hiro

https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/open-uri20150422-20810-16n3obb_baaa8389.jpeg?region=0,0,300,300
Fred

https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/open-uri20150422-20810-1e860io_fd403d2e.jpeg?region=0,0,450,450&width=320
Honey Lemon

https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/open-uri20150422-20810-kw9lqr_f16899db.jpeg?region=0,0,450,450&width=320
Wasabi

https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/open-uri20150422-20810-kw6zbs_dbb8c8a7.jpeg?region=0,0,450,450&width=320
Go Go

https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/character_bighero6_baymax_5aa2754b.jpeg?region=0,0 ,450,450&width=320
Baymax

So of the six heroes one is an inflatable balloon/robot incased in armor which I won't count as male or female. Of the five human heroes, one is a boy, two are young men, and two are young women, so 3 male, two female.

Do the males have a greater variety of types of body styles and personalities?

Well the only greyhaired character (the villian) is male, but Disney has had older female Villians (Cruella and Ursula) before.

One of the male heroes (Fred) is not a student inventor, whereas both of the women heroes are.

One of the male heroes is both tall and wide (Wadabi) and.neither of the women heroes is both tall and wide.

Are the women characters only distinguishing characteristic is being female?

Well one character (Honey Lemon) seems "girly" (wears a skirt, carries a purse, likes the colors pink and purple), and if she was the only heroine you may think of her as a "Smurfette", but she shows unusual courage in one scene, and her "girliness" is not shared by the other women characters.

The other women hero (Go Go) is not distinctly "girly", nor is she shown "tryimg to be one of the boys", she's just herself, which is basically a daredevil who loves to go fast. She does hug the lead character (Hiro) when he is despondent, which may be coded as being "maternal", but in watching the scene, it seemed more like the writers chose her because she was closest in height to Hiro.

It really seemed that all that was needed to make the female characters as diverse as the males was only one more character, which is a great deal less than Star Wars

So on the unscientific, and highly subjective basis of comparing one movie from 1977 to one movie from 2014, I'd say that the 21st century has more gender equality in media than the 20th.

So what?

Well I believe that more girls will be inspired and grow up to create stuff in the genres I like, than was the case in the past, thus giving me more of what I enjoy (if I live that long).

Satinavian
2017-08-07, 01:51 AM
Personal preferences of single people are... tangentially relevant at most. I mean, for the discussion about sexualisation, if anyone didn't find the resulting pictures sexy wouldn't really matter, either - this is talking a societal thing, which you do recognize, if I understand you correctly.Yes. The basic complaint about female at the core of this discussion is that our media culture(s) cater to the wishes of men and not of women. Which would be a valid complaint, if true (Which i think it is to a certain degree).

But now i question, how much of this "catering to mens wishes" is actually catering to mens wishes and not just trying to conform to outdated ideas about men.

What is even stranger, the whole "power fantasy" argument comes from people who are not happy with the gender roles in our society. But the idea that those actually are male power fantasies might itself be just a deeply ingrained gender stereotype. One of the things they fight against is the foundation of their own argument. That is what irks me that much. It should be the feminists who claim that Conan is not what an ideal men should be and should not be what men actually strife for. It should be their opponents claiming that this shows the male ideal every true man strifes for. This whole thing is intrinsically warped.


And the thing is... A lot of people do try to emulate gender roles.Yes. But that would mean that men building muscles in a gym is the same as women slimming down to fit in a dress or doing manicure or learning to knit. Usually the notion that those are things "women really want" would get attacked. Why is it that the notion that muscles are what men really want, quietly accepted ?


Possibly most people. I don't know any studies done on how much the things usually referred to as a power Fantasy are actually in line with the distribution of actual power Fantasies of men; but from sale numbers and followings (Tobtor gave a nice example) my conclusion would lean towards it actually BEING more or less in line.Unfortunately i don't know studies either. But i agree, we would need those now.

As for the commercial success... Conan was one. So much that the Conan movies formula is copied regularly to this very day, not to mention its influence on RPG. But the thing is, people still try to copy Conan. None of all those copy attempts were particularly successfull, including the recent reboot. Conan was immensely successful, but the market for "big manly muscle dude triumphing" might not actually be as big as people think. Otherwise newer attempts would have been able to replicate the success and refine the formula.

Some men not sharing in general societal ideas of how you (should) feel powerful as a man does not subtract from the fact that as far as I can see, many more do. Or, at least, marketing people think they do, and sales numbers might prove them right - the same way some women not liking the kind of guy portrayed in those romance novels discussed (I for one mostly think "uhm... no thanks?") does not really take away the fact that the men portrayed are somewhat sexualized.
At this point, you'd need studies. Does anyone have studies?I agree that marketing thinks so. Marketing is notorious for following well established "truths" without questioning them, especcially for things that can't be checked easily with a survey. Marketing also really likes to employ gender stereotypes to use self identification as a gender as a way to get identification with a product. (Which is also why marketing doesn't like promoting things to both genders at once - they can't use half of their methods then)

Really, if i want a list of not completely dead gender stereotypes and how to exxagerate them, i would look at marketing. But i would never do that if i wanted to know about actual gender. Or if i wanted to know what men or women actually want. Marekting only tells us, what we are supposed to want.

Think about the following :
One of the marketing truths is that women make the majority of buying decisions (there are studies and while not agreeing on the number that seems generally true and not just for groceries). That also means, women tend to buy certain things for their husbands and sons. So marekting should focus partly on women for some of the mens items. How does this work in practice ? Those items tend to be advertised with above average male gender stereotypes because markting thinks that those women tend to associate their men more with masculinity thean they do themself and assume that men just like manly things. That doesn't work as well with advertising actually targetting men who do know what they want and what they don't want. It is a bit harder to get those over common masculinity. Obviously the reverse is also true. Advertisement targetting men buying things for women (e.g. most jewellery) have also more female gender stereotypes.

While not really relevant for Conan, that is just another example of why you should never trust marketing about male/female desires.

Edit :

Ok, maybe i am just still annoyed that they cancelled the Teen Titan show because it had both a huge male and female fanbase and marketing guys could not find a way to market to kids instead of either to boys or to girls.
http://emorywheel.com/teen-titans-the-show-that-got-prematurely-cancelled/

Really Merketing and their stupid market segregation doctrine is one of the core roots of many of your media complains. Marketing guys and girls just want to have the population in handy seperate groups with shared ideals/interests which can be used for marketing purposes. There is not just coincidental occurance of stereotypes in marketing, they are used and reinforced actively as a tool to make it easier to sell more stuff.

Floret
2017-08-07, 05:13 AM
1. I just want to be sure I understand you. You are saying, within a genre protagonists should not be exclusively one gender, but you are ok with the proportion of protagonists of a particular gender being generally similar to the proportion of the target audience that is of that number. For example, if it turned out that 70% of the audience of daytime talk television were women (making numbers up), you would be ok if 70% of daytime talkshow hosts were also women, but not ok with 100% being women?

2a. Again a clarification. By "sideeye the skeevy ones" do you mean that you would be ok with their existence but that they are not the sort of thing you would want to play? So, no objection to them being available for people who like that sort of thing?

2b. Applying your comment "As long as it is one option amongst a range of them, I won't be opposed" to the armor design point, does this mean you have no problem with revealing female armor being one option, so long as you have the option of realistic or modest armor?

3. It appears you are concerned about women being so frequently portrayed as being attractive. I am trying to get a sense as to how many women would be portrayed as attractive in your ideal word - the example was, in similar proportion to real life. Is you "I dunno" an indication that you don't have view on how many should be attractive beyond a general "its too many now" opinion?

4a. Nobody will be able to "show you evidence that you are wrong". Attractiveness is subjective, we all disagree on what is and is not attractive (see Ayana Anno discussion), we all probably have certain biases and skews around these subject (each of us coming from a different perspective) and even if those things aren't true the most we can do is give examples, not any evidential breakdown of numbers. I think the best we (by which I mean near everyone in the thread) could ever hope for is a moderately persuasive anecdotal argument one way or the other.

4b. Why do you think the under-representation of ugly people (of either gender) is less important than the under-representation of women?

1. Yes. Because if the audience is only 70% women, the 30% men (or 28% men as the case might be, but for simplicity let's assume men and women collectively make 100%) also deserve to see themselves there - to see that they are not the weird ones out, enjoying something "really meant" for women. (In that hypothetical, 80% might still be okay, but not ideal. I am not saying the only acceptable way is perfect ratios, just that that would be the ideal case.)
2a. Pretty much. And that, depending on HOW the ones depicting loads of sexy women were doing that, maybe ask people to question why they are into that, but ultimately people having different tastes from me is not something I find objectionable.
2b. It depends. I'd want some proudcts with exclusively realistic/modest armor; and in those mixed ones would probably want at least somewhat equal options. I mean, Guild Wars 2 for example HAS both modest and skimpy/boobplate armor in it; but... the modest/realistic ones are less by lots, and the skimpy/boobplate ones disproportionately common amongst the prestige armors. Something like this I would still like to be changed.
3. As I said, "as many as in real life" is what I (in the absence of that happening) think my ideal world would look like. Where, on the sliding scale from now down to there I would draw the line to say "yeah, it's not perfect, but it's alright now", THAT I cannot say. This line was what my "I dunno" meant.
4a. Attractiveness isn't actually that subjective, there are entire fields of sociological study related to that thing. Yes, people do have different tastes, but "conventionally attractive" does carry a good bit of objectively measurable connotations. There is a reason there are quite a lot of rather unambiguously "attractive"-labelled celebrities. I am not asking for someone to show me the evidence along my own lines of attraction; just along the semi-objective societal ones.
4b. Because ugly people are less systematically discriminated against then women are. I mean, they are, in some respects, even outside of dating (Conventionally attractive people having higher chances at getting jobs, for example), but not as strongly and systematically - there were never laws drawn up saying "ugly people cannot own property". Or maybe it's because I am on the side of privilege and I'm a hypocrite. I'd really like to think the former is a solid reason, though ;)


Some further thoughts on "genre" female characters.

[...]

So on the unscientific, and highly subjective basis of comparing one movie from 1977 to one movie from 2014, I'd say that the 21st century has more gender equality in media than the 20th.

So what?

Well I believe that more girls will be inspired and grow up to create stuff in the genres I like, than was the case in the past, thus giving me more of what I enjoy (if I live that long).

While I do agree with your assessment that it is better, and why this is a good thing; I must disagree that the example is quite equal - I'd argue there still is a larger range in at least body types amongst the male characters; and while one movie with a 2 out of 5 ration would not be an issue - the fact that, given an uneven number of protagonists (of mixed genders) it's usually the case that the larger number are men, there still is some work to be done.
(I mean, sure, you can't split 5 50/50; but if every single time there are 5 only 2 are women, overall we end up at 20/30 at 10 movies, and that number COULD be split more evenly, is what I'm saying.)


Yes. The basic complaint about female at the core of this discussion is that our media culture(s) cater to the wishes of men and not of women. Which would be a valid complaint, if true (Which i think it is to a certain degree).

But now i question, how much of this "catering to mens wishes" is actually catering to mens wishes and not just trying to conform to outdated ideas about men.

What is even stranger, the whole "power fantasy" argument comes from people who are not happy with the gender roles in our society. But the idea that those actually are male power fantasies might itself be just a deeply ingrained gender stereotype. One of the things they fight against is the foundation of their own argument. That is what irks me that much. It should be the feminists who claim that Conan is not what an ideal men should be and should not be what men actually strife for. It should be their opponents claiming that this shows the male ideal every true man strifes for. This whole thing is intrinsically warped.

Yes. But that would mean that men building muscles in a gym is the same as women slimming down to fit in a dress or doing manicure or learning to knit. Usually the notion that those are things "women really want" would get attacked. Why is it that the notion that muscles are what men really want, quietly accepted ?

Ah, I see there are two things being conflated here:
The statement I wanted to make was "This is, under the current social situation, what men are taught to want, and a large percentage of them do actually want it".
This statement, while I would agree its true, does lack one assumption I personally also make, but which you rightfully point out isn't clear from it alone: "This is not something men should have to want".
Gender stereotypes are bad and outdated, pretty much in general. Not just for the sake of women, but also for the sake of men who are absolutely held up to stupid standards as well; standards that a lot of men suffer under. I happen to think that the standards for women are somewhat worse (Being told "you have to be pretty and desirable and passive" is somewhat more limiting than "you have to go out and be strong and assertive and acting" (This is a shorthand and not the full list)); but men would be greatly served by there being more portrayals showcasing a broader range for them - men being soft, weak, emotional, and that being okay, for example.

Incidentally, this is what feminists do - just because we note that men are taught to want a thing, and do for a good portion want it, does not contradict itself with "this is not a good thing, not even for men". But the fact that in an ideal world, the stereotypes that lead to this kind of power Fantasy wouldn't exist, doesn't mean they don't exist now, and we have to view current expressions of culture through the lense of current culture. I apologize if arguing that something IS a male power Fantasy came across as arguing for men to conform to potentially harmful stereotypes.

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-07, 06:06 AM
It makes in 100% non-fallacious - check any definition of what you called the bandwagon fallacy but is more formally called argumentum ad populum.

Whether you think it is a strong argument or not, is another matter. You example doesn't help you (and is a logical fallacy itself):
- if you asked a 1000 questions, it may be that 990 of them were answered correctly (by the majority), you have just picked one of the ten that weren't answered correctly,

This is not a quiz. This example is yet another wonderful red herring. You like those. I'm not much of a fish man, myself.

Every definition I've found makes room for IMPLICATION of correctness, and does not limit it to outright declarations of the absolute truth of their subject matter and no further application.

So, no, in what I've seen, adding the world "probably" does not change matters.
To quote two:
"The basis of the ad populum appeal is the assumption that large numbers of persons are more likely to be right than a given individual is likely to be right."
"The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answers A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A."

Note the "more likely" there? That's the two-word version of "probably."

The only thing you CAN demonstrate by this appeal, by logical rule, is that many (in truth: about 3) people agree with you. Nothing can be said about the validity of their conclusions.
"Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree."

Check.



- You have arbitrarily skewed the people answering by asking it on a flat earthers forum (which would obviously have more people with a preconception that the earth was flat. Ask the same question in another forum which is neutral to that particular question, and you would probably get a different response.

Hence following it with "Hyperbolic example to prove the general point." The example is meant to demonstrate one of the most glaring and obvious flaws with this argument:
Unknown bias.




No need to reference anything, your backpeddling has achieved the same ends.

This is funny. Clarification of a point is now changing a point, even when the presentation has been consistent save for a word that was ommitted in a typo.



You original statement was "t is not admissable as evidence and does not count as a confession." I challenged you on whether it is admissable, not whether it constituted a confession. Your reply above emphasises that there was no confession (it was never claimed to be one), but does not continue to claim the statement is inadmissable. So we no longer have any disagreement on the point.
To correct the typo, stick the word "of" after "evidence."
This remains a red herring, as your example was not one of failure to say "it wasn't me" but one of saying something that ""implies"" guilt.

But then again you never said you weren't using a red herring, so by your logic, you ARE using a Red Herring.

Check.

2D8HP
2017-08-07, 06:44 AM
...While I do agree with your assessment that it is better, and why this is a good thing; I must disagree that the example is quite equal....

.....(I mean, sure, you can't split 5 50/50; but if every single time there are 5 only 2 are women, overall we end up at 20/30 at 10 movies, and that number COULD be split more evenly, is what I'm saying.)


No disagreement.

"Better" doesn't mean "perfect", or "good enough".

When I wrote "I'd say that the 21st century has more gender equality in media than the 20th"

I should have instead written

I'd say that the 21st century is closer to gender equality in media than the 20th.

In this thread I've been arguing what may seem to be contradictory opinions, so I'll try to clarify.

I'm defensive of old "genre" media (especially 1970's Dungeons & Dragons), but I'm also supportive of efforts to make new "genre" media fairer/more diverse/inclusive (mostly because I believe more and a greater variety of "genre" works will come to be created, and the gaming community will get larger).

I'm defensive of the "old stuff" because in it's time I think it was better than people give it credit for in the context of the total culture, and yes I'm claiming senior priviledge as one of the few in this thread who remembers the 1970's, but that doesn't mean I think things could not have been improved.

Ashiel
2017-08-07, 07:02 AM
1. Yes. Because if the audience is only 70% women, the 30% men (or 28% men as the case might be, but for simplicity let's assume men and women collectively make 100%) also deserve to see themselves there - to see that they are not the weird ones out, enjoying something "really meant" for women. (In that hypothetical, 80% might still be okay, but not ideal. I am not saying the only acceptable way is perfect ratios, just that that would be the ideal case.)
Why is it that I never hear these complaints the other way around?

I know dudes (including some of the ones I play D&D/Pathfinder with) who like the Tinkerbell movies. To the point when we were picking out a movie to watch and it was discovered the one with the winter fairies was on we chose to watch that instead of something else.
https://i0.wp.com/media2.slashfilm.com/slashfilm/wp/wp-content/images/ZZ2B78361F.jpg
Bronies everywhere.
http://gamesmylittlepony.com//images/pictures/1501817300.jpg
And the list goes on.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/df/WITCHposter.jpg/250px-WITCHposter.jpg
Nobody complains there's not a Ken's Big Adventure movie.
http://www.princessmovies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Barbie-Movies-Online.jpg

I wonder why most fans of something (be it comic book characters, video game characters, etc) seem to hold problematic characters with such reverence and esteem. I pointed out several pages back that the people complaining about sexism treat Ivy Valentine like she's just a pair of tits, but those who care about the series know her as one of the strongest and most iconic characters of the series with a rather unusual backstory that tells a story of strength, heroism, and rising above the weight of her father.

What if people consume certain media because that's what they want to consume because they saw it, liked it, and went with it. If 100% of women's romance novels are comprised of female protagonists, that's not a problem since people that read them read them because they like them. There's no need to go "Hey, you women are being sexist and should include at least X% male protagonists".

So I don't see the need to do so elsewhere. Especially in mediums like RPGs, comic books, and video games which are already probably the most naturally diverse mediums of nerds you can find. Also the most welcoming. I would posit the notion that the largest pushback against "diversity" in these genres is because of stuff just like this thread.

Everyone can have what they want, but only if everyone gets to have what they want.

Orcus The Vile
2017-08-07, 07:19 AM
I pointed out several pages back that the people complaining about sexism treat Ivy Valentine like she's just a pair of tits, but those who care about the series know her as one of the strongest and most iconic characters of the series with a rather unusual backstory that tells a story of strength, heroism, and rising above the weight of her father.

As if anyone played fighting games for the plot. Does her story even appear in cutscenes? I only know about her going ons because of her Wikipedia article and the literal wall of text in her character backstory that I don't believe a lot of players bother to read.

Ashiel
2017-08-07, 07:23 AM
As if anyone played fighting games for the plot. Does her story even appear in cutscenes? I only know about her going ons because of her Wikipedia article and the literal wall of text in her character backstory that I don't believe a lot of players bother to read.
Most people play games primarily for the gameplay. That's why they're games and not books.
I also mentioned Tifa Lockheart from FF7. If you don't think story is important in RPGs, the odds of us communicating are abysmally low. :smallfrown:

Orcus The Vile
2017-08-07, 07:28 AM
Most people play games primarily for the gameplay. That's why they're games and not books.
I also mentioned Tifa Lockheart from FF7. If you don't think story is important in RPGs, the odds of us communicating are abysmally low. :smallfrown:

By the gods dude, read the stuff you quote, I said fighting games! Fighting games!!!

People play rpgs for the plot, fighting games for the gameplay. For exemple, Final fantasy they play for the plot; they play tekken for the gameplay.

Got it?

2D8HP
2017-08-07, 07:30 AM
Why is it that I never hear these complaints the other way around?.


I don't know, maybe because this thread started about D&D?

FWIW, one of the very many cartoons my son watched was Strawberry Shortcake, which IIRC had only one boy character...

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/Strawberry_Shortcake_Chars_Year1_Year2.png/300px-Strawberry_Shortcake_Chars_Year1_Year2.png

...Huckleberry Pie.

My son didn't seem particularly bothered by there being only one male character on Strawberry Shortcake, nor did he seem bothered by only one female character on Turbo Dogs

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/47/Turbo_Dogs.jpg


I think he was just grateful it wasn't the news.


So I don't see the need to do so elsewhere. Especially in mediums like RPGs, comic books, and video games which are already probably the most naturally diverse mediums of nerds you can find. Also the most welcoming. I would posit the notion that the largest pushback against "diversity" in these genres is because of stuff just like this thread..


This thread? Can you elaborate please?

CharonsHelper
2017-08-07, 07:58 AM
FWIW, one of the very many cartoons my son watched was Strawberry Shortcake, which IIRC had only one boy character...


Isn't the dog also a boy? (I've only watched the new ones a few times with my nieces/nephews.)

I don't remember the original version (which I watched as a kid) had even one male character besides the purple pieman - though I could just not be remembering.

And I know that Rainbow Bright didn't have any male heroes besides the unicorn (other than in a movie?).

I watched both as a kid, though I did think of them as 'girl shows'. But when you have a sister two years older than you...

Watching them didn't really bother me, nor did the lack of male characters. And I don't think April being the only major female character in TMNT bothered my sister either. (Her favorite was Michelangelo.)

Frozen_Feet
2017-08-07, 07:59 AM
It should be the feminists who claim that Conan is not what an ideal men should be and should not be what men actually strife for. It should be their opponents claiming that this shows the male ideal every true man strifes for. This whole thing is intrinsically warped . . . But that would mean that men building muscles in a gym is the same as women slimming down to fit in a dress or doing manicure or learning to knit. Usually the notion that those are things "women really want" would get attacked. Why is it that the notion that muscles are what men really want, quietly accepted ?


https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aD0OR4O_700b_v1.jpg

More seriously: the idea that peer pressure and unrealistic portrayals in media can be harmfull to men and boys is nothing new. When I was an adolescent, as much was written in primary school health education books and there were several campaigns specifically targeting boys and young men, teling them that big muscles are not worth using steroids (etc.). This was over a decade ago.

So I'd say, where it actually matters (in youth education), it is NOT quietly accepted. At least not in Finland.

But I'd hardly expect everyone to be on ball with that. Culture and attitudes are rarely as monolithic as they are claimed to be in discussions like this. There are certainly subcultures where big muscles for men ARE the ideal. But on the other hand, is RPG subculture really one of those?

Armored Walrus
2017-08-07, 08:03 AM
Of course what I should start posting in these threads is this.

The only people you need to satisfy are the people you play with.

The only people you need to satisfy are the people you play with.

The only people you need to satisfy are the people you play with.

Can I make this my signature? It answers so many of the questions you see on these boards...

Ashiel
2017-08-07, 08:14 AM
By the gods dude, read the stuff you quote, I said fighting games! Fighting games!!!
People play rpgs for the plot, fighting games for the gameplay.
I don't get the sense that people insisting that there shouldn't be sexy characters worrying about what tier Ivy is either. :smallamused:



For exemple, Final fantasy they play for the plot; they play tekken for the gameplay.

Got it?
Had it. Point still stands. In the post I originally mentioned Ivy's backstory in, I also mentioned Tifa Lockheart who got similar criticisms for having bit tits. I've consistently seen that gameplay doesn't matter to the moral authoritarians nor the one-true-way aesthetically minded. And consistently I only seem moral authoritarians and aesthetic purists viewing these characters like they're just a sack of tits.

The only people objectifying these characters are the ones complaining about the objectification of them.

The same people that apparently think that creators do not have creative direction concerning the characters they create. This idea that you can create a character, decide their likes, dislikes, wants, hopes, dreams, fears, and adventures, but you cannot choose how or why they dress a certain way because you're somehow oppressing your creation because it's "not her choice".

It gets old. Let people like what they want to like. Everyone can win. People that like more modest and/or realistic armor can have that. People that like something different can have their likes too. Everyone wins. The only time anyone loses is when people are trying to force one onto the other, and when that happens we all lose. The hobby loses. Doesn't even matter what hobby. It creates bitter feelings where none should be.

A Typical D&D Party Played by Friends
https://cdna.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/002/459/258/large/kerem-beyit-rom-barbarian-rev.jpg?1461964125
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/5f/03/69/5f0369ffa91a6ad09b3e9cc65edbfb62--female-pirates-female-pirate-art.jpg
https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1453/45/1453458013439.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/15/a4/e1/15a4e17873f6e075ee8d8bf607336b19--anime-gar%C3%A7ons-arte-anime.jpg
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/ea/3d/e7/ea3de7bf57c20ef69c7c669835a72859.jpg
https://img.fireden.net/tg/image/1453/45/1453458013439.jpg

Liquor Box
2017-08-07, 08:23 AM
This is not a quiz. This example is yet another wonderful red herring. You like those. I'm not much of a fish man, myself.

You are quite right, it's not. I look forward to circling back to tha observation of yours later in my post.


To quote two:
"The basis of the ad populum appeal is the assumption that large numbers of persons are more likely to be right than a given individual is likely to be right."

Note the "more likely" there? That's the two-word version of "probably."
Great. You 'forgot' the link though:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html
I wonder if you know this already, but what you quoted is not the fallacy itself, but the surrounding discussion. As part of that description it raises the ad populum appeal - and it is the appeal that your quote relates to. The appeal is of course not the fallacy. When the fallacy itself is stated, there is no use of words such as most likely. It is stated as follows:
"the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true"

Now, there may be some doubt about whether the words "prove a conclusion" mean to prove it as a certainty (deductive reasoning you will recall), or provide some evidence to support (inductive reaosning). The second interpretation appears strained to me, but we need not strain ourselves arguing its interpretation because the page you quoted from actually confirms (under III of the discussion):
"nevertheless, the fact that many people agree, can be relevant evidence for the truth in some instances, as shown below"

Let's see what "as shown below" mean, keeping in mind your astute observation that this is not a quiz (and is a matter of interpreting Luz's words) (under V of the discussion):
"Non-fallacious examples of the ad populum: the appeal is not irrelevant when what most persons believe or what the select few believe does in fact determine what is true. Conventional truth such as the definitions of words, standard use of symbols, and clothing styles, or voting in juries, meetings, or political elections are typical examples where the appeal to the majority , the experts, or the people-in-the-know would be relevant and so would not be fallacious."

Lucky it wasn't a quiz so the very first example given in the page you identified related directly to what we were talking about isn't it.


"The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answers A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A."

Forgot the link again - good old wikipedia this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
First, interesting that you forgot the end of your quote. Here it is in full, with the tail reattatched, and bolded for emphasis:
"The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answers A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness."


The only thing you CAN demonstrate by this appeal, by logical rule, is that many (in truth: about 3) people agree with you. Nothing can be said about the validity of their conclusions.
"Appeal to popularity is therefore valid only when the questions are whether the belief is widespread and to what degree."

Check.

You are on much firmer ground here, as I conceded on the last page where I said "Whether you think it is a strong argument or not, is another matter". Once we have conceded that the argument is not a fallacy, we can consider how strong it is. It would have been much more credible for you to have abandoned your incorrect "fallacy" argument once I pointed out to you that it was incorrect rather than trying to resurrect using the above selective quoting, and instead concentrated on this argument alone. Anyway, the fact that a person is no longer credible does not necessarily mean that they are wrong this time (that would be a fallacy), so lets continue.

Your quote is again from the same wikipedia article as I referenced above. It says more on the question of how much of a majority is needed as follows:
"There is the problem of determining just how many are needed to have a majority or consensus. Is merely greater than 50% significant enough and why? Should the percentage be larger, such as 80 or 90 percent, and how does that make a real difference? Is there real consensus if there are one or even two people who have a different claim that is proven to be true?"
It asks the questions, but unfortunately no answers. By my count we have 5 (posts 897, 898, 902, 905 and of course me) seeing it one way, and 1 (you) seeing it the other. So 5/6 is about 83%.
How strong of an argument it is is a matter of judgment. I have given my view that I think it a strong argument, especially in a question of the interpretation of words.


Hence following it with "Hyperbolic example to prove the general point." The example is meant to demonstrate one of the most glaring and obvious flaws with this argument:
Unknown bias.
Do we need to address this now that your assertion that appeals to the majorty is a fallacyhas been disproven?

Assuming we do, the fact that you labelled your example as hyperbolic does not protect from a person pointing out its flaws. If you think the problem was in the example and not the underlying logic, by all means post another, and I will point out the flaws in it again (very likely the same one).


This is funny. Clarification of a point is now changing a point, even when the presentation has been consistent save for a word that was ommitted in a typo.
To correct the typo, stick the word "of" after "evidence."

First, correcting a typo is changing a point, and not clarification of a point.

But lets see if it was even a correction of a typo as you say. This is what you wrote
"It is not admissable as evidence and does not count as a confession."

Where does the word "of" fit in?

I think that you are now trying to pretend you meant "it is not admissable as evidence of a confession". But it is clear when we look at your actual quote that that was not what you meant.

Anyway, you now appear to realise that it is admissable, and that it need not be a confession to be relevant to determining guilt, so we can move on.


This remains a red herring, as your example was not one of failure to say "it wasn't me" but one of saying something that ""implies"" guilt.

You are right in my example the suspect said something that implied guilt in response to the suggestion from the policeman that he was guilty. The same happened with Luz - when confronted with a suggestion that she was gatekeeping (your word) she responded in a way that implied she indeed was. In response she asked why I am here. So the analogy stands.

If you don;t think Luz's response implied gatekeeping (I do, and so do most others, but you may not), then the example I gave still strong without the answer that implied guilt. Anything short of an implied denial, carries some implication of guilt. To ensure thereis no confusion, I am not saying it is conclusive evidence of guilt, or that a jury would convict on that alone, but taken together with other evidence, letting an accusation stand* suggests guilt.
*In the absence of any good explanation why it would have been allowed to stand - for example in a forum a person might allow an untrue assertionagainst them stand because they did not see it or because they are avoiding engaging with the person who made the assertion.

Ashiel
2017-08-07, 08:25 AM
This thread? Can you elaborate please?
Well the way I've seen it is as such.

One side (hereby referred to as "side A") dislikes an aspect of a media and insists it must be changed.
Another side (hereby referred to as "side B" likes the aspect of the media that side A is against.

Side B demonstrates that there is great variety in the media, demonstrating that currently what A says they want is also included with what B wants. Side A insists that side B's preferences are wrong and that there must be less of the aspect they enjoy in the media that they have traditionally consumed. This is an aggressive play. This naturally gets side B riled up, because they weren't bothering anyone and then someone comes in telling them how bad the stuff they already like is, and then starts throwing around pseudo-social garbage and insisting that the creators of their media are sexist, fools, ignorant, etc (and in most cases the fans as well).

Couple this with the implication that their media and what they enjoy is somehow morally degrading their minds and society at large, and it doesn't take very long before everyone see's you're just Jack Thompson or Patricia Pulling wearing a new sheep skin.

Then you've got people like me who like both, sitting on the fence. I like the view on both sides. If side B was the aggressor, I'd be defending side A. Side A is the aggressor so I'm defending side B. Because everyone can win, but when we fight about it, everyone loses. And we end up with a dumpster fire like Marvel Comics.

SaurOps
2017-08-07, 10:31 AM
Well the way I've seen it is as such.

One side (hereby referred to as "side A") dislikes an aspect of a media and insists it must be changed.
Another side (hereby referred to as "side B" likes the aspect of the media that side A is against.

Side B demonstrates that there is great variety in the media, demonstrating that currently what A says they want is also included with what B wants. Side A insists that side B's preferences are wrong and that there must be less of the aspect they enjoy in the media that they have traditionally consumed. This is an aggressive play. This naturally gets side B riled up, because they weren't bothering anyone and then someone comes in telling them how bad the stuff they already like is, and then starts throwing around pseudo-social garbage and insisting that the creators of their media are sexist, fools, ignorant, etc (and in most cases the fans as well).

Couple this with the implication that their media and what they enjoy is somehow morally degrading their minds and society at large, and it doesn't take very long before everyone see's you're just Jack Thompson or Patricia Pulling wearing a new sheep skin.

Then you've got people like me who like both, sitting on the fence. I like the view on both sides. If side B was the aggressor, I'd be defending side A. Side A is the aggressor so I'm defending side B. Because everyone can win, but when we fight about it, everyone loses. And we end up with a dumpster fire like Marvel Comics.

That's an extremely localized and short-sighted view that ignores everything outside the thread happening on a daily basis. The "Side B" in this thread tends to overwhelmingly support what they call "creativity" by rehashing the same thing over and over again and ignoring any faults with it. This is even what allows this post to drip with ironclad self-assurance even though there isn't really much variety in replicating the WoW armor problem. Just more TNA, for days. Weeks. Years. An eternity. Always defended with the same tired rhetoric, always given the appearance of "good clean fun".

ImNotTrevor
2017-08-07, 11:00 AM
You are quite right, it's not. I look forward to circling back to tha observation of yours later in my post.

[QUOTE]
Great. You 'forgot' the link though:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html
I wonder if you know this already, but what you quoted is not the fallacy itself, but the surrounding discussion. As part of that description it raises the ad populum appeal - and it is the appeal that your quote relates to. The appeal is of course not the fallacy. When the fallacy itself is stated, there is no use of words such as most likely. It is stated as follows:
"the fallacy of attempting to prove a conclusion on the grounds that all or most people think or believe it is true"

Now, there may be some doubt about whether the words "prove a conclusion" mean to prove it as a certainty (deductive reasoning you will recall), or provide some evidence to support (inductive reaosning). The second interpretation appears strained to me, but we need not strain ourselves arguing its interpretation because the page you quoted from actually confirms (under III of the discussion):
"nevertheless, the fact that many people agree, can be relevant evidence for the truth in some instances, as shown below"

Let's see what "as shown below" mean, keeping in mind your astute observation that this is not a quiz (and is a matter of interpreting Luz's words) (under V of the discussion):
"Non-fallacious examples of the ad populum: the appeal is not irrelevant when what most persons believe or what the select few believe does in fact determine what is true. Conventional truth such as the definitions of words, standard use of symbols, and clothing styles, or voting in juries, meetings, or political elections are typical examples where the appeal to the majority , the experts, or the people-in-the-know would be relevant and so would not be fallacious."

Lucky it wasn't a quiz so the very first example given in the page you identified related directly to what we were talking about isn't it.

Ah yes. 5 people determine the meaning of words. I forgot that you 5 were the High Gods of Knowing What People Intend With Their Words. My bad, my lord.



Forgot the link again - good old wikipedia this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
First, interesting that you forgot the end of your quote. Here it is in full, with the tail reattatched, and bolded for emphasis:
"The argumentum ad populum is a red herring and genetic fallacy. It appeals on probabilistic terms; given that 75% of a population answers A to a question where the answer is unknown, the argument states that it is reasonable to assume that the answer is indeed A. In cases where the answer can be known but is not known by a questioned entity, the appeal to majority provides a possible answer with a relatively high probability of correctness."

And yet you continue to assume correctness, and this whole probability thing is relatively recent.



You are on much firmer ground here, as I conceded on the last page where I said "Whether you think it is a strong argument or not, is another matter". Once we have conceded that the argument is not a fallacy, we can consider how strong it is. It would have been much more credible for you to have abandoned your incorrect "fallacy" argument once I pointed out to you that it was incorrect rather than trying to resurrect using the above selective quoting, and instead concentrated on this argument alone. Anyway, the fact that a person is no longer credible does not necessarily mean that they are wrong this time (that would be a fallacy), so lets continue.

Your quote is again from the same wikipedia article as I referenced above. It says more on the question of how much of a majority is needed as follows:
"There is the problem of determining just how many are needed to have a majority or consensus. Is merely greater than 50% significant enough and why? Should the percentage be larger, such as 80 or 90 percent, and how does that make a real difference? Is there real consensus if there are one or even two people who have a different claim that is proven to be true?"
It asks the questions, but unfortunately no answers. By my count we have 5 (posts 897, 898, 902, 905 and of course me) seeing it one way, and 1 (you) seeing it the other. So 5/6 is about 83%.
How strong of an argument it is is a matter of judgment. I have given my view that I think it a strong argument, especially in a question of the interpretation of words.

Something something sample size.
Also participation in this thread is already highly biased, ALSO, lots of skimming and failure to read. (Even you, as I'll demonstrate below.)



Assuming we do, the fact that you labelled your example as hyperbolic does not protect from a person pointing out its flaws. If you think the problem was in the example and not the underlying logic, by all means post another, and I will point out the flaws in it again (very likely the same one).


I ask 6 people in an FLGS (this forum) on Pathfinder day (this thread) if d20 dice are good for X task. 5 say yes. 1 says no.



First, correcting a typo is changing a point, and not clarification of a point.

Thou shalt not correct errors in communication, for the original statement is the official truth.



But lets see if it was even a correction of a typo as you say. This is what you wrote
"It is not admissable as evidence and does not count as a confession."

Where does the word "of" fit in?

Try reading the post. Where I told you where to put it. Right after Evidence.



I think that you are now trying to pretend you meant "it is not admissable as evidence of a confession". But it is clear when we look at your actual quote that that was not what you meant.

Anyway, you now appear to realise that it is admissable, and that it need not be a confession to be relevant to determining guilt, so we can move on.




You are right in my example the suspect said something that implied guilt in response to the suggestion from the policeman that he was guilty. The same happened with Luz - when confronted with a suggestion that she was gatekeeping (your word) she responded in a way that implied she indeed was. In response she asked why I am here. So the analogy stands.

Asking questions: now suitible as an admission of guilt.



If you don;t think Luz's response implied gatekeeping (I do, and so do most others, but you may not), then the example I gave still strong without the answer that implied guilt. Anything short of an implied denial, carries some implication of guilt. To ensure thereis no confusion, I am not saying it is conclusive evidence of guilt, or that a jury would convict on that alone, but taken together with other evidence, letting an accusation stand* suggests guilt.
*In the absence of any good explanation why it would have been allowed to stand - for example in a forum a person might allow an untrue assertionagainst them stand because they did not see it or because they are avoiding engaging with the person who made the assertion.

And yet you'll continue to assume guilt because they said nothing and people agree with you.

Your words say "oh no, I was saying that maybe Luz was" while your overall actions assume guilt from whole cloth and proceed with the blatant accusation because others agreed, likely out of bias or due to not reading thoroughly.

Your pseudo-intellectualism is really cute, but I have thoughts:

1. You never said this isn't a red herring, so it is. By your own logic. Which is good enough for me.

2. This is now derailing the thread, so I'm going to stop. Feel free to interpret this however helps you sleep at night. Just know I'm chuckling heartily on my end.

3. Note also how it stopped entirely after my clarified objection. Nobody but you said they weren't convinced, so by your logic they are now on my side.

See how lack-of-saying-a-thing is not evidence of a belief or action? Because 3 is a load of bull. An obvious one. Because I assume a conclusion based on the lack of someone telling me otherwise. Which is stupid.

And, doubly so because the explanation for the questioning was given already:


It just strikes me as odd.

This is a RPG forum, most rpgs fans are also fans of pop culture, to see someone who is so alien to iconic concepts, itís really weird.


Pretty much just "oh, that's very unusual. I have questions." And questions were asked until you slung poorly veiled accusations around. (In fact, doing so before you could get any sort of definite answer.)

In the same vein that if I were on a French forum and they were asking me the same line of questions about Valerian, I'd explain my circumstance. They would be right to be curious how a non-frenchman, knowing little of French pop culture might end up on a french forum talking about it. Take the language barrier part out and I'm guessing we're looking at a fairly similar story here. I wouldn't get far in my goals of participating if I decided to respond to "so you're a scifi fan, but you've never read Valerian?" With an accusation instead of "Yup. It's not as popular where I live, so I've never read it." Because either they'll have to respond with "neat." And the curiosity is proven, or they respond with some variant of "REEEEEE NORMIES GET OUT." But in French. (HON HON, ADIUE NORMIES?)

In any case, this has been real neato.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-07, 11:04 AM
That's an extremely localized and short-sighted view that ignores everything outside the thread happening on a daily basis. The "Side B" in this thread tends to overwhelmingly support what they call "creativity" by rehashing the same thing over and over again and ignoring any faults with it. This is even what allows this post to drip with ironclad self-assurance even though there isn't really much variety in replicating the WoW armor problem. Just more TNA, for days. Weeks. Years. An eternity. Always defended with the same tired rhetoric, always given the appearance of "good clean fun".


The reaction is as if there's a call to "forbid" all depictions of characters as sexual entities, regardless of context. And we've seen the same stock selection of talking points used for as long as I've been paying attention, going 30 years or more, to "refute" that strawman -- long before this thread or these forums or the ubiquitous web even existed.

The "side A" case is actually that objectifying and sexualizing the depictions of female characters regardless of context or character details, as a stock approach, needs to be re-examined and avoided. Not only does a female character not need to be sexualized and "idealized" (to a very narrow ideal) or even "standard attractive" to be an appealing all-around character... it also detracts from their full characterization when they're reduced to an object of pandering. And to top it off, a female character doesn't even need to fit into that narrow "ideal" to be attractive.

If a character is supposed to be somehow overtly sexual as part of their character, then there's nothing wrong depicting her that way. Absolutely nothing (whether that sort of character is appropriate for a specific work or audience is a different question). However... it seems that every time there's a question about how a character is depicted, the reasons why that might be legitimate are immediately spammed out as a stock defense against even the question.

For the classic example, see the aforementioned decades-old-now "She's an empowered confident woman in command of her life and her own sexuality". Because evidently showing skin and randomly striking poses and making pouty heavy-lidded faces is the only way for a woman to be empowered and confident and in command of her own life? That always struck me as the funhouse-mirror version of the same thing it claims to refute, in that it still makes a female character's worth intrinsically linked to her sexual qualities.

CharonsHelper
2017-08-07, 11:18 AM
The reaction is as if there's a call to "forbid" all depictions of characters as sexual entities, regardless of context. And we've seen the same stock selection of talking points used for as long as I've been paying attention, going 30 years or more, to "refute" that strawman -- long before this thread or these forums or the ubiquitous web even existed.

I'm not going to argue whether or not the point is valid here - but just because an argument has been used for a long time doesn't mean that it's inherently invalid. (You and several other people seem to be saying/implying that.)

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-07, 11:36 AM
I'm not going to argue whether or not the point is valid here - but just because an argument has been used for a long time doesn't mean that it's inherently invalid. (You and several other people seem to be saying/implying that.)


Sorry, lack of clarity on my part, maybe.

I didn't mean to say that old arguments are invalid simply because they're old.

It's that when the same argument is used over and over, to "refute" examples that are wildly different in specifics and context, for decades on end, it looks less like a legitimate argument and more like a trite and tired stock response.

See the above example of the "empowered woman" -- somehow, whether the female character is:

a hard-nosed interstellar ranger tracking down dangerous alien criminals
a 16-year-old who had to take up a rifle and join the rebels in the hills when the government fell to dictatorship and executed her parents
a woman who took vows with a militant order to defend her homeland and kin against the unending hordes of orcs and undead that cross the mountains every summer and winter respectively
a noir private detective trying to make a living in "a man's world"


... and regardless of her personality or characterization... when some artist decides to "panderize" her clothing, build, pose, expression, etc... it's almost inevitable that someone will defend it with the claim of "she's an empowered woman, in command of her own sexuality, comfortably with her own body, no man can tell her what to do!". (And the irony is, that "positive" is almost as loaded with toxic garbage assumptions about women as what it claims to refute.)

And that's been going on for as long as I've been paying attention to this subject.

Talakeal
2017-08-07, 11:47 AM
As if anyone played fighting games for the plot. Does her story even appear in cutscenes? I only know about her going ons because of her Wikipedia article and the literal wall of text in her character backstory that I don't believe a lot of players bother to read.

I certainly play fighting games for the plot.

Well, I used to, now I just save myself the time and money and watch the storyline on youtube.

Floret
2017-08-07, 12:52 PM
No disagreement.

"Better" doesn't mean "perfect", or "good enough".

When I wrote "I'd say that the 21st century has more gender equality in media than the 20th"

I should have instead written

I'd say that the 21st century is closer to gender equality in media than the 20th.

In this thread I've been arguing what may seem to be contradictory opinions, so I'll try to clarify.

I'm defensive of old "genre" media (especially 1970's Dungeons & Dragons), but I'm also supportive of efforts to make new "genre" media fairer/more diverse/inclusive (mostly because I believe more and a greater variety of "genre" works will come to be created, and the gaming community will get larger).

I'm defensive of the "old stuff" because in it's time I think it was better than people give it credit for in the context of the total culture, and yes I'm claiming senior priviledge as one of the few in this thread who remembers the 1970's, but that doesn't mean I think things could not have been improved.

I didn't mean to claim you said it was perfect. Sorry if it came across that way. And, I can see how the perspective on the old stuff might be slanted, and that it was never as bad as some people might fear, recall or make it out to be. It is good to get perspective - it might not be comfortable to be shown one's beliefs are wrong, but if they are, it is necessary to do that.
DnD of old was much better than I would have imagined, for example. Dark Eye... had more naked men than I'd seen; but was about as bad about women as I thought (From my personal definition of "good" and "bad"). It's good to know these things. And probably good to have access to the perspective of someone who remembers a decade two before I was even born :smallwink:


Why is it that I never hear these complaints the other way around?

I know dudes (including some of the ones I play D&D/Pathfinder with) who like the Tinkerbell movies. To the point when we were picking out a movie to watch and it was discovered the one with the winter fairies was on we chose to watch that instead of something else.
https://i0.wp.com/media2.slashfilm.com/slashfilm/wp/wp-content/images/ZZ2B78361F.jpg
Bronies everywhere.
http://gamesmylittlepony.com//images/pictures/1501817300.jpg
And the list goes on.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/df/WITCHposter.jpg/250px-WITCHposter.jpg
Nobody complains there's not a Ken's Big Adventure movie.
http://www.princessmovies.tv/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Barbie-Movies-Online.jpg

I wonder why most fans of something (be it comic book characters, video game characters, etc) seem to hold problematic characters with such reverence and esteem. I pointed out several pages back that the people complaining about sexism treat Ivy Valentine like she's just a pair of tits, but those who care about the series know her as one of the strongest and most iconic characters of the series with a rather unusual backstory that tells a story of strength, heroism, and rising above the weight of her father.

What if people consume certain media because that's what they want to consume because they saw it, liked it, and went with it. If 100% of women's romance novels are comprised of female protagonists, that's not a problem since people that read them read them because they like them. There's no need to go "Hey, you women are being sexist and should include at least X% male protagonists".

So I don't see the need to do so elsewhere. Especially in mediums like RPGs, comic books, and video games which are already probably the most naturally diverse mediums of nerds you can find. Also the most welcoming. I would posit the notion that the largest pushback against "diversity" in these genres is because of stuff just like this thread.

Everyone can have what they want, but only if everyone gets to have what they want.

For that point, I was merely going with the example numbers LiquorBox had constructed for the sake of a theoretical argument; not trying to go into any direction; or any one way around. Options for men to see themselves in female-dominated genres (or jobs) are important; as are options for women to do the same in male-dominated ones.
If there is a medium with largely male viewerbase having no women in there can just be par for the course, and be of no consequence - or it can be a reason for parents that care too much about gender roles to disencourage girls from watching it. Can discourage girls from watching it anyways; subconsciously telling them "this is not something girls are".
Because... it isn't. It is largely culture, cultural stereotypes ingrained into our thinking by parents, peers and media from a very early age. Diversity in representation in media has time and again been shown to impact what kids think their options for life are.

So far, not everyone CAN have what they want. To chew out those that can for daring to say that, and claiming that the fact they said it is why they don't get it, or shouldn't get it is... dangerous reasoning. "Just be nicer, then they will give to you" is not something that has actually worked, ever.


Well the way I've seen it is as such.

One side (hereby referred to as "side A") dislikes an aspect of a media and insists it must be changed.
Another side (hereby referred to as "side B" likes the aspect of the media that side A is against.

Side B demonstrates that there is great variety in the media, demonstrating that currently what A says they want is also included with what B wants. Side A insists that side B's preferences are wrong and that there must be less of the aspect they enjoy in the media that they have traditionally consumed. This is an aggressive play. This naturally gets side B riled up, because they weren't bothering anyone and then someone comes in telling them how bad the stuff they already like is, and then starts throwing around pseudo-social garbage and insisting that the creators of their media are sexist, fools, ignorant, etc (and in most cases the fans as well).

Couple this with the implication that their media and what they enjoy is somehow morally degrading their minds and society at large, and it doesn't take very long before everyone see's you're just Jack Thompson or Patricia Pulling wearing a new sheep skin.

Then you've got people like me who like both, sitting on the fence. I like the view on both sides. If side B was the aggressor, I'd be defending side A. Side A is the aggressor so I'm defending side B. Because everyone can win, but when we fight about it, everyone loses. And we end up with a dumpster fire like Marvel Comics.

Apart from what SaurOps and Max have already answered:
As a member of (I guess) "Side A", I feel you are somewhat misrepresenting what is happening.
Because for one, Side B has not demonstrate any such thing. It has shown that the spectrum of representation might be broader than some people believe. That is true. As my inquiry for an MMO without sexualised armor has (so far) yielded no result; it has at least not yet be shown that there actually exists what I want. It exists in some areas, sure, but by far not everything I'd actually want DOES exist amongst the numerous instances of boob armor, women dressed less than their male counterparts, less realistically muscled; and less likely to be able to deviate from beauty standards (However behold men, too, stay to them for a great deal).

And... The claim "this aspect of media has subobtimal sideeffects" wasn't made in a vacuum. It wasn't made on its own. It was made with quite a lot of arguments for WHY this might lead to suboptimal results. The fact that people get uncomfortable when something they like is called out for being problematic is nothing new. It sucks to have to face the possibility of you being wrong about something. But... The fact that this impulse is happening does not mean the callout is undeserved. Being agressive does not make one wrong (There's a name for that fallacy, but I can't recall it presently.).
The fact that other people also criticise the same thing from other angles with possibly even ridiculous claims also does not make the thing right - Because I cannot think of anything else currently, maybe think of Caitlyn Jenner. There are some people criticising her for being a trans woman - those people are clearly in the wrong, and somewhat *******s. But this doesn't invalidate the criticism some other people have levied against her for her stance on political issues.
Distinct sets of criticism have to be argued against as distinct. Invalidating one does not invalidate the other; and claiming it does is another one of those fallacies I can't recall the name of. (Starting to fear I might be bad at that.)
And, out of interest, how is Marvel comics a dumpsterfire? The "Heroes are now Nazis, oh no, Hydra, that was it" plotline? I assume you might mean something else, but please clarify.

Maybe, as an addon to the discussion of "inhuman female characters are more likely to still be pretty, for some reason", a video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWYOuVoDbXk)of a current example. And also on many of the other points of the discussion.

theNater
2017-08-07, 03:25 PM
The only people objectifying these characters are the ones complaining about the objectification of them.
What about the people drawing porn of them? I mean, sure, some of them are deeply invested in the characters, but I'd be very surprised if none of it was just based on body shape.

Max_Killjoy
2017-08-07, 03:28 PM
What about the people drawing porn of them? I mean, sure, some of them are deeply invested in the characters, but I'd be very surprised if none of it was just based on body shape.

Never mind the astounding amount of double-think that underlies the assertion that objecting to objectification is objectification.... :smallconfused:

Liquor Box
2017-08-07, 04:56 PM
1. Yes. Because if the audience is only 70% women, the 30% men (or 28% men as the case might be, but for simplicity let's assume men and women collectively make 100%) also deserve to see themselves there - to see that they are not the weird ones out, enjoying something "really meant" for women. (In that hypothetical, 80% might still be okay, but not ideal. I am not saying the only acceptable way is perfect ratios, just that that would be the ideal case.)
2a. Pretty much. And that, depending on HOW the ones depicting loads of sexy women were doing that, maybe ask people to question why they are into that, but ultimately people having different tastes from me is not something I find objectionable.
2b. It depends. I'd want some proudcts with exclusively realistic/modest armor; and in those mixed ones would probably want at least somewhat equal options. I mean, Guild Wars 2 for example HAS both modest and skimpy/boobplate armor in it; but... the modest/realistic ones are less by lots, and the skimpy/boobplate ones disproportionately common amongst the prestige armors. Something like this I would still like to be changed.
3. As I said, "as many as in real life" is what I (in the absence of that happening) think my ideal world would look like. Where, on the sliding scale from now down to there I would draw the line to say "yeah, it's not perfect, but it's alright now", THAT I cannot say. This line was what my "I dunno" meant.
4a. Attractiveness isn't actually that subjective, there are entire fields of sociological study related to that thing. Yes, people do have different tastes, but "conventionally attractive" does carry a good bit of objectively measurable connotations. There is a reason there are quite a lot of rather unambiguously "attractive"-labelled celebrities. I am not asking for someone to show me the evidence along my own lines of attraction; just along the semi-objective societal ones.
4b. Because ugly people are less systematically discriminated against then women are. I mean, they are, in some respects, even outside of dating (Conventionally attractive people having higher chances at getting jobs, for example), but not as strongly and systematically - there were never laws drawn up saying "ugly people cannot own property". Or maybe it's because I am on the side of privilege and I'm a hypocrite. I'd really like to think the former is a solid reason, though ;)



1. Ok. I largely agree with you here so far.
What proportion of the audience of Science Fiction (feel free to choose a different genre, if it is a different one that interests you) do you think is female? I realise you wont know the precise answer tot his, unless you have done a lot of research, but what is your best estimate (a range is fine)?

2a. Ok, we are on the same page with respect to your "pretty much", I too think that all significant markets should be catered to in this context. Do you think that that there are games (of the type you like - please specify what that is) available that cater to both your tastes and the tastes you dislike?

2b. Understood. Guild Wars, which is a MMORPG, raises an interesting point, because aren't most characters in MMORPGs created by other people. Surely if you are seeing a lot of people in skimpy armour that is because lots of individuals made that choice (given both skimpy and modest armour is available, although not in equal proportion). If my understanding is correct, is that the fault of the media, or the users?

2c. In your answer to 2a you said "depending on HOW the ones depicting loads of sexy women were doing that". Does that mean that there are some ways of depicting sexy women that you object to, even if that game (for example) caters to people with different preferences and there are alternatives available to you? If so, what are those ways of depicting sexy women?

3.Great, understood. Would you apply the same criteria to other traits (not looks)? So for example should women be portrayed as intelligent/unintelligent in roughly equal proportion to them being intelligent/unintelligent in real life?

4a. That's interesting. I suppose that you are right that there is a certain range of body shapes that are considered conventionally attractive for each gender, although I imagine there may be some argument as to where the line is draw. With faces, again I suppose you are right that there are some features that are widely accepted as unattractive. But even given that, there are huge grey areas. If you and I (or even you and a like minded person) were to given pictures of 100 people and asked to classify them as attractive, ordinary or unattractive (by societal standards) I suspect there would be 10 to 20 that we would classify differently. Even though there are some objective elements, there are some clearly subjective ones.
Even if attractiveness were totally objective though, how would one prove to another the incidence of attractiveness in a genre? I mean we are not talking about absolutes (no one is claiming there are no unattractive people of either gender), we are talking relative proportions here, I struggle to see someone mounting a convincing argument that is more than anecdotal either way,

4b.
This is interesting. I don't agree that it is obvious that women are discriminated against more than unattractive people (especially if you include things like fatness, baldness, shortness as being within unattractive). I mean fat people get abused for being fat, tall people are more likely to be in senior roles than short people (of the same gender) etc. There is pretty widespread and major discrimination against unattractive people. I mean, it's not studied as much (probably partly perhaps because unattractiveness is more difficult to classify than gender), but we both agree it exists and I think it is clearly pervasive and sometimes severe. On what basis do you say that it is less than the discrimination that women experience?

5. Forgot to ask this before. In terms of under-representation of female characters, where do you think the problem is most severe - a lack of female protagonists, a lack of female main characters (which would include antagonists), a lack of female characters (including minor supporting characters), or all of the above?

Floret
2017-08-07, 07:21 PM
1. Ok. I largely agree with you here so far.
What proportion of the audience of Science Fiction (feel free to choose a different genre, if it is a different one that interests you) do you think is female? I realise you wont know the precise answer tot his, unless you have done a lot of research, but what is your best estimate (a range is fine)?

2a. Ok, we are on the same page with respect to your "pretty much", I too think that all significant markets should be catered to in this context. Do you think that that there are games (of the type you like - please specify what that is) available that cater to both your tastes and the tastes you dislike?

2b. Understood. Guild Wars, which is a MMORPG, raises an interesting point, because aren't most characters in MMORPGs created by other people. Surely if you are seeing a lot of people in skimpy armour that is because lots of individuals made that choice (given both skimpy and modest armour is available, although not in equal proportion). If my understanding is correct, is that the fault of the media, or the users?

2c. In your answer to 2a you said "depending on HOW the ones depicting loads of sexy women were doing that". Does that mean that there are some ways of depicting sexy women that you object to, even if that game (for example) caters to people with different preferences and there are alternatives available to you? If so, what are those ways of depicting sexy women?

3.Great, understood. Would you apply the same criteria to other traits (not looks)? So for example should women be portrayed as intelligent/unintelligent in roughly equal proportion to them being intelligent/unintelligent in real life?

4a. That's interesting. I suppose that you are right that there is a certain range of body shapes that are considered conventionally attractive for each gender, although I imagine there may be some argument as to where the line is draw. With faces, again I suppose you are right that there are some features that are widely accepted as unattractive. But even given that, there are huge grey areas. If you and I (or even you and a like minded person) were to given pictures of 100 people and asked to classify them as attractive, ordinary or unattractive (by societal standards) I suspect there would be 10 to 20 that we would classify differently. Even though there are some objective elements, there are some clearly subjective ones.
Even if attractiveness were totally objective though, how would one prove to another the incidence of attractiveness in a genre? I mean we are not talking about absolutes (no one is claiming there are no unattractive people of either gender), we are talking relative proportions here, I struggle to see someone mounting a convincing argument that is more than anecdotal either way,

4b. This is interesting. I don't agree that it is obvious that women are discriminated against more than unattractive people (especially if you include things like fatness, baldness, shortness as being within unattractive). I mean fat people get abused for being fat, tall people are more likely to be in senior roles than short people (of the same gender) etc. There is pretty widespread and major discrimination against unattractive people. I mean, it's not studied as much (probably partly perhaps because unattractiveness is more difficult to classify than gender), but we both agree it exists and I think it is clearly pervasive and sometimes severe. On what basis do you say that it is less than the discrimination that women experience?

5. Forgot to ask this before. In terms of under-representation of female characters, where do you think the problem is most severe - a lack of female protagonists, a lack of female main characters (which would include antagonists), a lack of female characters (including minor supporting characters), or all of the above?

1. I know that women are far more present, for longer, and way more consistently than some people give them credit for. If I had to estimate, I'd guess something of about 1/3 to 1/2 of the Sci-Fi fandom being women. I would probably make similar predictions about Fantasy.
But I don't quite feel my personal guesses are relevant to this discussion, to be honest. Why do you ask?

2a. I like lots of games, this is hard to answer. And please define "cater to my tastes". The aforementioned Guild Wars 2 does cater to my tastes in regards to Gameplay, otherwise I wouldn't play it, but it doesn't fully cater to my tastes in regards to proper representation. I have praised the current edition of the Dark Eye for it's representation, but even that isn't exactly what I'd be looking for, there are still questionable decisions (And the writers in many places do not understand what "full gender equality" actually means). I have media that I can enjoy, in pretty much all forms of it that I want to - but there being things I am able to enjoy despite their flaws does not mean what I actually want is out there. There are things pretty close to it; and in regards to representation I think Dark Souls does a good job (Might be one or two strange decisions for enemy/boss design, iirc?); but for playing it myself (As opposed to Let'splays, which is my form of engagement with the series) it just isn't my thing.

2b. Sure, the players made that choice. In a game heavily reliant on optical gear prestige (Where collecting skins is part of the endgame, since gearprogression isn't much of a thing); where the most prestigous skins are almost exclusively skimpy, and the modest ones are run-of the mill things you wear while levelling. Sure, the choice is made, but not on an even playing field; too many conflating variables. And I would fault the medium at least for a great part for not supplying equal options so the choice can be made in that equal setting.

2c. Depictions that reduce women to their bodies and sexyness as their sole character trait or in ridiculous ways will always be suspect to me. You can be sexy without being objectified; but when depictions do those things it's no longer just a character being sexy, it's a character being made to be ogled. As long as this happens to women far more frequently as to men; and as long as there are still elements and voices in culture directly connotation a woman's worth to her attractiveness, those depicitions just won't rest easy with me. I will repeat that I would not argue for a ban, or censorship, just advocate for societal change that might just phase them out in the long run. Or maybe it won't, society will be ideal, and there will still be Dead or Alive Beach Volleyball.
(Something that seems suspect to me as it quite literally takes the strengths, fighting skills etc. from the characters; to put them into bikinis playing beachgames with carefully-crafted jiggle physics. If I am missing something about this that totally invalidates my criticism, please tell me, but this is some strange stuff...)

3. Yeah, I would. Of course, don't misconstrue this as "every piece of media has to have perfect proportions of everything". Of course not. What I am saying is that in an ideal situation, over all works of fiction our culture produces, the collective numbers line up better with real life.

4a. Sure, some subjectivity is there. Interestingly, it is the opposite setup that is actually used in sociology sometimes: Attraction researchers (Or whatever the correct translation would be) tried to find a measure to objectively judge attractive faces (By symmetry, for example, position of eyes, mouth and nose relative to each other etc.). They did this - and then they compared the results to another measure: Showing the same face to ten, maybe twenty people and asking them to rate on a scale from 1 to 10. The result? The average rating for any given face of the 1 to 10 scale, if given to enough randomly selected people to have the effects of personal taste filtered out, fits almost perfectly with the rating retrieved through careful measuring. This can at least be interpreted such that over a large enough representative sample of people; attractiveness becomes pretty objective - not "how attractive to a specific person" but "how attractive in general/on average"; which would be the thing relevant for the discussion from my perspective. (And, no, the average ratings weren't all 5 :smallwink:)
How would we prove the incidence of attractiveness? With a large enough random (or specifically selected) representative sample of characters; given to a large enough random (or specifically selected) representative group of people (Or, though more time consuming and about as accurate, put them through the measuring processes); collect the ratings, and sort them according to the demographic splits we want to look at. (I'd expect men to come in at maybe 5-7; and women around 7-8 for humanoid characters; but that's a pretty wild guess on my part and not actually a relevant number; I give it only to put numbers on the degree of difference I think there is.)

4b. The discrimination against ugly people is less codified, and systematic. As I said, there have never been laws about this, contrary to discrimination of women, suggesting the issue was either seen so clear-cut as to not require them (unlikely, given how many ugly people were, for example, rather successfully rulers - generations of incest do a number on your attractiveness rating; or present in numerous other positions); or isn't as strongly felt. Sure, women do have most of the same rights now; but the same attitudes that lead to placing these laws in the first place didn't vanish with the laws getting a slight minority, enough to be discarded. It is to expect that the impact of the same ideas that lead to this is still felt today (And, indeed, it is; for example women being unable to run for office for a long time causes problems with them getting into office - because keeping it is easier than winning it; and the ones having that advantage were still all men, even after the change; and even after we today might agree women are just as fit to hold office (Numbers of people out there don't even agree with that one))
And beyond that, just look at the ratio of, for example, women in leadership positions; and ugly people in leadership positions (or even just in parliament or sth); with regards to their respective rations in real life. Ugly people aren't really underrepresented - women definitely are. I could go on.
Yes, ugly people face individual acts of discrimination, yes, attractive people are more likely to get jobs or higher salaries (not by that big a margin, but yeah); or have more dates. But women get individual acts of discrimination as well - less likely to get jobs, less likely to be taken seriously, more likely to be harassed on the street. (And then we get into ugly women existing that face both of this and get the really short end. Intersectionality can be a bitch.) On that basis, I firmly believe the discrimination against ugly people isn't as big of a problem; but still a bit of a problem. I wouldn't champion that cause myself, but I could understand if someone else did, so to speak.

5. What way do you mean "most severe"? Which of those is currently the place furthest "off" and has the most work to be done? Then I probably think either antagonists or protagonists; probably antagonists. Or are you asking which I would find more important? Then the answer is "all of the above".

Talakeal
2017-08-07, 07:33 PM
Ever read the original stories? Conan's described as a 'scar-faced giant of a man'. Not exactly good-looking.

Yes, yes I have. But admittedly, it was several years ago and I don't recall many of the specifics about his appearance. I certainly don't remember him being called ugly, mostly it is just talking about his smoldering blue eyes, muscular thews, and panther like grace, none of which says to me "androgynous" or "blobby and shapeless".

But again, when people talk about Conan in media they are typically thinking of visual representation, classic Vallejo art, Marvel Comics, or Arnold.


Well, keeping in mind my comments on Conan and Romance covers, let's apply the things I outlined there:



The central character looks at the viewer, and the woman is clinging onto her, making the central character be the one that is desired; but that being shown (by her looking away) to be not the focus of her character, but almost incidental. On those points, she fits in perfectly in line with the power Fantasy. (Also, her pose is realistic, not focussing on pronouncing her sexual characteristics, but instead just being a solid, strong standing position.)
I would probably subtract points for the fact that the breasts of muscular women don't work like that, and the fact that the clothing (The panties, if there is enough there to call them that) is figure-enhancing in a way closer to those of the Romance cover leads rather than Conan (Who has his crotch region just covered up, instead of pronounced); but generally I'd say this falls a lot more on the side of the power Fantasy.

Also, much success on that questioning; I hope you find and answer soon - and support and acceptance, whatever that answer might be :smallsmile:

I actually did have your guidelines in mind. One thing I noticed as a result is that the woman actually is looking at the girl on her arm, although she is doing subtly and out of the corner of her eyes rather than straight on.

But yeah, see for me the dominant athletic woman is the "sex object" and the pretty maiden on her arm is the "power fantasy," but I admit I am probably not normal in regards to gender roles, which is why this whole thing is a little baffling to me.

Also, one thing I wanted to point out; I had to censor the picture to post it on this forum. It really is hard to depict the human body (whether you are going for sexiness, athleticism, or simply shape) without appearing either pornographic or anachronistic without resorting to some form of impractical bikini armor.


These two things do not exist on an opposed continuum.

The way the debates go they normally do.

The way I typically observe it, people say that it is sexist for women to be portrayed as objects / sexualized / scantily or impractically clad / stereotypically feminine, someone points out that it isn't really sexist as men are also portrayed as objects / sexualized / scantily or impractically clad / stereotypically masculine as a counter to the sexism, and then someone chimes in that one is a sex fantasy and the other is a power fantasy and thus they should be viewed under completely different lenses.

Floret
2017-08-07, 08:04 PM
I actually did have your guidelines in mind. One thing I noticed as a result is that the woman actually is looking at the girl on her arm, although she is doing subtly and out of the corner of her eyes rather than straight on.

But yeah, see for me the dominant athletic woman is the "sex object" and the pretty maiden on her arm is the "power fantasy," but I admit I am probably not normal in regards to gender roles, which is why this whole thing is a little baffling to me.

Also, one thing I wanted to point out; I had to censor the picture to post it on this forum. It really is hard to depict the human body (whether you are going for sexiness, athleticism, or simply shape) without appearing either pornographic or anachronistic without resorting to some form of impractical bikini armor.

Interesting. I can definitely see where you get the interpretation that she is looking that way, though I think this is indeed a matter of interpretation - I never noticed, and even looking back at it now I can still see her looking not at the woman on her arm but at the viewer. Eyes can be drawn in weird, ambiguous ways.

What do you mean? The dominant athletic one is more who you'd like to be with; and the pretty maiden on the arm who you'd like to be?
If that; I have to say "Doesn't really matter (for the discussion)", personal tastes aren't all that relevant on their own. n=1 can prove anything, after all (or rather, nothing, since it isn't science). I am pretty sure most men (or even most women) would disagree with you in your view on that situation.
(Note that even if being the maiden hanging onto the strong person is something you desire, it's not really a power Fantasy, as there is no power expressed - "Power Fantasy" is not synonymous with "the way I want to be"; but rather "This makes me feel powerful and in charge/control" - not every person will actually want a power fantasy.)
(Also, yes, this is the point where we'd need demographical studies that none of us have shown yet and I don't know if exist. Only working with more-or less anecdotal evidence; personal assessments of the situation and maybe the very flawed measure of secondary data from (video game) sales - the problems with "vote with your wallet" (Lack of actual comparable/otherwise equivalent options, mostly) are in full swing again here and we would probably be best advised to be cautious not to overinterpret them.)


The way I typically observe it, people say that it is sexist for women to be portrayed as objects / sexualized / scantily or impractically clad / stereotypically feminine, someone points out that it isn't really sexist as men are also portrayed as objects / sexualized / scantily or impractically clad / stereotypically masculine as a counter to the sexism, and then someone chimes in that one is a sex fantasy and the other is a power fantasy and thus they should be viewed under completely different lenses.

Stereotypes for men still hurt men; this does not subtract from the fact that in a society based solely on gender stereotypes, women would be the ones discriminated against; and men the ones in power. Stereotypical men act; stereotypical women don't and all that stuff.
Keeping in mind what I have said to try and differenciate the two before in this thread; what are the parts that require further explanation/extrapolation to you? What parts are you not convinced on?