Armor designs for females?

[Ashiel]

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]

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 it’s an important concept or a core element you don’t 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]

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]

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.

[Max_Killjoy]

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]

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, 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.

[kraftcheese]

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, where the following is mentioned forthright.



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

Carry on.

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]

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]

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]

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, actually.

[ImNotTrevor]

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]

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.

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" for those not old enough to remember that bit of ugly radio demagoguery.)

[Ashiel]

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

Yeah, I think we're all going to get a lot of mileage out of this website.

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.

[CharonsHelper]

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 it’s an important concept or a core element you don’t 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]

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:

Spoiler: Geeze

Show

[Max_Killjoy]

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 it’s an important concept or a core element you don’t 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]

Yeah, it goes both ways. Maybe Amazon and company are...

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

Spoiler: like this

Show

...but I'd be even more chafed if I could only get

Spoiler: stuff like this

Show

---

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!

There!

[Max_Killjoy]

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:

Spoiler: Geeze

Show

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]

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]

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

I'm not sure what you are talking about

Here we go:

Spoiler

Show

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.

Spoiler: Juggernaut with no mask

Show

- 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]

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? It’s 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]

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?

Spoiler: How a real woman dress for combat

Show

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:

Spoiler

Show

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]

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:

Spoiler: Geeze

Show

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Spoiler

Show

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, one a women's magazine. 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]

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

Spoiler: How a real woman dress for combat

Show

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.