Armor designs for females?

[Floret]

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 in regards to the woman; and the way Conan is positioned 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 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]

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]

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:

Spoiler: Ugly woman heros

Show

This is Boa Marigold - her wiki text describes her as heroic

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.

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]

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]

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 :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.

[ImNotTrevor]

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]

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 :

Spoiler

Show

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Keltest]

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.

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]

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.

[2D8HP]

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 reminisce about Fritz Leiber's character "Fafhrd" (an old favorite of mine), and Leiber in his 1968 story "The Two Best Thieves in Lankhmar" 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]

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]

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:

Spoiler: Large Borderline NSFW Image

Show

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]

Where does this fall on the sexualization vs. power fantasy scale?

These two things do not exist on an opposed continuum.

[Floret]

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 :

Spoiler: Big picture

Show

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:

Spoiler: Large Borderline NSFW Image

Show

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:

Spoiler: What I said on Conan and Romance novel covers

Show

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 in regards to the woman; and the way Conan is positioned 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

[Orcus The Vile]

On the sexualization and power fantasy lookign the same:

Does this:

Spoiler: NSFW?

Show

Look the same as this?

Spoiler

Show

[Liquor Box]

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 “being oblivious or ignorant to what happens in the outside world”. It is used to describe a person who doesn’t know something any “normal” 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]

On the sexualization and power fantasy lookign the same:

Does this:

Spoiler: NSFW?

Show

Look the same as this?

Spoiler

Show

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]

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

Spoiler: Judy Hopps

Show

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]

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 “being oblivious or ignorant to what happens in the outside world”. It is used to describe a person who doesn’t know something any “normal” 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]

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]

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]

"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]

Why do we even care if the character is a hero?

I mean, other than the ongoing attempts to invalidate examples...

[Mendicant]

Why do we even care if the character is a hero?

I mean, other than the ongoing attempts to invalidate examples...

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]

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]

Why do we even care if the character is a hero?

I mean, other than the ongoing attempts to invalidate examples...

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]

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.