Armor designs for females?

[2D8HP]

I wonder what you know.

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

Oh I want to play too!

I still don't really know you Rorschach is (some comic book character), and I have never seen any of the post 1980's Star Wars films.

Further, I barely know anime, and what I do know is old:

Thanks for the tip, but....

Confession:
While I have watched some anime (I particularly remember Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind), and my son loves Naruto, I can never remember, nor can I imagine actually asking for anime recommendations (maybe ask my older son what we should get for his little brother someday?).

Nope, I've only seen two "Anima" movie's one was 1984's Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, and the other was 1979's Galaxy Express 999.

Some other genre related films I've seen have been:

1958's Seventh Yoyage of Sinbad,

1977's Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger,

1977's The Hobbit (cartoon),

1978's The Lord of the Rings (cartoon)

1980's Hawk the Slayer,

1981's Dragonslayer,

1981's Excalibur,

1982's Conan the Barbarian,

1982's The Sword and the Sorcerer,

1984's Conan the Destroyer.

2001's The Fellowship of the Ring, and

2002's The Two Towers.

Please, please, please, question my cred!

Viking dragon riders =Awesomicity x 1000

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qT8jCT...j9_qDs8czXsq0B

Fellow playgrounders, with the DEEPEST HUMILITY, having done the EXTENSIVE RESEARCH (reading forum threads, looking in the PHB to see if the SIMUwhatsit spell was in there, and a Wikipedia article at lunch), and having the CREDENTIALS (within the space of a year I saw the Hobbit cartoon on channel 5 without missing any of it to go to the bathroom, I looked at the Dungeons and Dragons box at the toystore in the mall, and saw Stars Wars the most times of everyone in 5th grade, no way did Ben see it 15 times, where are the ticket stubs huh?) to answer the conundrum asked in this thread about Dragonslayin' (just sayin').
Because:
1) It has been shown.that 750 light crossbow wielding guards have a fair chance against a 20th level Wizard.
2) A 20th level Wizard is so infused with awesome that they can take on an Ancient Red Dragon using the SIMUwhatsit spell, causing the DM to declare "rocks fall everybody dies" including said Wizard and Dragon.
3) Longbow archers beat the stuffing out of Crossbowmen especially just after it rains, and they don't need to waste a stinkin' feat neither!
I have therefore concluded that one Longbow archer has a fair chance to defeat an Ancient Red Dragon provided there is a Wizard near who looks suspiciously like Dave Arneson the co-creator of D&D on the left side of the box, and that an archer will definitely defeat the said Dragon if he listens to the talking bird.
However without the Wizard Dave or the advice of the talking bird, then no amount of archers can prevail against the Awesome Dragon and Laketown is toast.
-YOUR WELCOME

No I don't know exactly what you consider qualifications for "geekdom", but by Christmas of 1977, I had seen Star Wars (I will never call it "A New Hope" ever!) multiple times in movie theaters, saw the Hobbit cartoon when it was first broadcast, and had the original 1977 Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set in my hands, plus I had William Shatner (maybe you've heard of Captain Kirk?) sign a record album for me, and I had used a computer at the Lawrence Hall of Science, that used butcher paper to print out text, instead of a newfangled video screen.

But I don't know who Rorschach is.

Do you still question my cred?

Is helped by my standing in line for over seven hours to see Raiders of the Lost Ark the weekend it got to the California 3 theatre on Kitredge Street (Berkeley, California) in 1981?

I have a question for you:

Do you recognize this?



I doubt you were even born when I heard those words.

When the OP started this thread and asked:

"So I was wondering, over the few editions of D&D, how did armor look for female characters?

I'd imagine it got a bit more modest as the years went by, considering D&D's audience in the early years..."

..

Since I count myself as a part of "D&D's audience in the early years", I thought to contribute to this thread, even though I don't recognize a particular comic book superhero/villain/another/whatever.

Do you question what I'm doing here and think that I don't belong?

[Satinavian]

It just strikes me as odd.

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

What are you fan of?

What movies do you as a reference for you adventures?

What brings you here?

You know, this is primarily a (fantasy) RPG forum.
RPGs are quite international today and we have contributers from all over the world. That is even more true for video games.

But superhero comics are still mostly an US thing. Most entries into pop culture or geek culture that come from superhero comics are not really part of those cultures elsewhere. This has changes slightly with the load of really expensive superhero movies lately, but it is still more or less true. As a result comic culture is american, video game culture and rpg culture are not.


I have been a bit iffy about discussing female representation in comics, RPGs and video games at the same time as if those somehow originate in the same culture for the whole thread. Now that you have pointet out that you think someone should recognize a character like Rorschach ... do you actually think those comics were translated and published in lots of other countries ? Do you think, teens with at best a teneous grasp of school English tend to order comics of heroes they don't know from oversee ? Until a very recent movie he was basically completely unknown elsewhere.
Until recent movies most non american geeks didn't even know who Captain America is and unsurprisingly they still don't care about him at all.


Aside from that, even though Star Wars is known in a bigger part of the world, not every geek has to have seen every movie.

Do you recognize this?

That might be a fair comparison to the Darth Maul guy, but Rorschach is far more obscure.

[Ashiel]

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

Some might think so. Others, including myself, might not. I appreciate your concern, however. Thanks.

[Liquor Box]

I honestly didn't read it that way even a little. It comes across to me as pure disbelief. At no point was your credibility commented on. Just a general "how did you even get here while still missing that?"

That random trivia aside, I'm honestly just not seeing the justification for passive aggressive accusations of gatekeeping. Call me blind or whatever, but I was honestly also curious how you'd missed that, and your story was informative. Notice how the issue has been dropped since, because curiosity was satisfied.

I really don't see the justification unless you're looking for it. >.>

You may nit see the justification, but you do not sit in sole authority on the issue. I see several others seemed to have perceived it the same way I did. I point out again that when I first implied to Luz that it seemed to me she was suggesting i had to have the same geek knowledge she does to post here, she did not reply "that's not what I meant", but instead went ahead with her questions. If you don't see that, well then you and I will have to agree to disagree.

In terms of criticising passive aggresive behaviour, I suggest that people in glass houses should not throw stones. I refer you to your post 788:

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

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

Other than that I think Satinavian has probably got the right of it. I am not from USA (although I am from an English speaking country) and certainly the comic books are not at all big here (they are probably actually hard to get). I'm sure the star wars movies have all been screened, but if you hadn't to have seen the movie(s) with Darth Maul you probably wouldn't have heard of him, because here he is not a well known pop-icon (like Darth Vader, for instance, is).

[Floret]

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

No clue, either, but that was not the point. The point was more general: There is a disparity in the depiction of male and female characters when it comes to attractiveness. The fact that there are alien species designed with this sort of disparity illustrates that disparity.
(You are right, "being attractive members of their own species" is irrelevant, but female Twi'lek are generally considered attractive by humans. Just try googling it. Maybe turn safe search off for added impact and clarity.)

When I typed 'harsh' into google, the very first definition that arose was "unpleasantly rough or jarring to the senses". Given the additional context of her wishing she was cuter, I think that that is the definition of harsh which was meant.

I have never seen "harsh" in that context applied to anything other than sound or maybe texture, tbh. A human might have a harsh voice, yes, but beyond that, applied to humans, I very reflexively go to the second definition: cruel, severe, merciless; etc. While that is not a physical characteristic, personality traits can be used as physical descriptors in a metaphorical way meaning "looks like they have that personality trait". Given that the full sentence calling her harsh is this:

Despite her harsh appearance, it's at least partially show, and though she doesn't mind being thought of as cool and badass, Ayane has a secret (or not-so-secret, but rarely believed) desire to be 'cute'.

I find my interpretation far more likely - uglyness cannot ever be "show". You cannot turn that off - but you could turn off presenting a certain personality trait outward. To boot, looking at this sentence again, "cute" is set in direct contention with "badass", not with "harsh".

Great. We have agreement on one thing at least - Brienne (per the books) is an example of a hero human female who is ugly. Whether Gwendoline Christie is ugly or not isn't really the point, as you note, the way she is depicted in the TV show is as being ugly (other characters reference it in the TV show.

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

Yes, a human with dwarfism does count as a human. Indeed. This is not a matter of you thinking, this is a matter of facts. In the books, his unattractiveness goes way beyond just that dwarfism.
Ah, so now the problem is heroic? I thought we were talking about heroes in the sense of protagonists. How exactly do you define heroic? Good in physical combat, pure of heart, open with their intentions? Because if so, you are getting far, far more arbitrary than I thought. Both are presented as protagonists, and as characters the reader is supposed to identify with. Characters to root for, to agree that if they succeeded at their goals, the world would probably become a better place. They definitely qualify on that front.
I don't think one needs to be a knight in shining armor to fully qualify as a hero. I mean, if we restrict this even further on classical heroic traits, we're eventually gonna get "attractive" in there and lead this whole discussion completely to ridiculousness.

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

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

Oh, something does: "More stark-like features than any of his half-brothers", and "the long face of the Starks", incidentally. This feature is, while that didn't carry over into the Show (Visual adaptations oftentimes "prettyfy" characters), in the books described with a clear connotation of "unattractive", even sometimes called "horse-like". And, yeah, that might count up Arya alongside him, the girl really isn't described as pretty.

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

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

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

You can't? It's right there on the page you first linked her with:

Ayane lives in a mansion with her two oddly-unaging butlers Jervis and Jeeves, who have raised her since she was a child, and who hide the secret that Ayane is not entirely human, even from her. Ayane also has a kitten, Nin-nin, who finds her scary-but-cool.

(As for details on this, I had no clue the character even existed before you mentioned her, any information I have on her is gleaned from the same sites you sent me to.)
Incidentally, the TvTropes page also mentioned her not making the cut as a Face, and since the Pokemonfandom and TvTropes have taught me wrestling terms, "Face" is synonymous with "hero", there. Meaning her unnerving eyes disqualify her from being one. This makes three for three counts of her inclusion being at least sketchy, as per your rules (Not unambiguously ugly; not unambiguously human; not unambiguously a hero).

Also, @everyone, can we please stop discussing people's geek cred and come back to the topic? Because, even though I fervently disagree with Liquorbox on everything else they write, I must join the people feeling that them not knowing all "relevant" geekthings was implied to at least lessen the importance of their opinion, if not in intention, certainly in presentation and possible impact.

[Liquor Box]

No clue, either, but that was not the point. The point was more general: There is a disparity in the depiction of male and female characters when it comes to attractiveness. The fact that there are alien species designed with this sort of disparity illustrates that disparity.
(You are right, "being attractive members of their own species" is irrelevant, but female Twi'lek are generally considered attractive by humans. Just try googling it. Maybe turn safe search off for added impact and clarity.)

When you say "generally considered attractive to humans" do you mean that most humans who are attracted to females are also attracted to twilek females, or do you mean that they are fetishised by a small group? I mean I can see some sexualised pictures of them, but that suggests the latter, not the former.

I have never seen "harsh" in that context applied to anything other than sound or maybe texture, tbh. A human might have a harsh voice, yes, but beyond that, applied to humans, I very reflexively go to the second definition: cruel, severe, merciless; etc. While that is not a physical characteristic, personality traits can be used as physical descriptors in a metaphorical way meaning "looks like they have that personality trait". Given that the full sentence calling her harsh is this:

I find my interpretation far more likely - uglyness cannot ever be "show". You cannot turn that off - but you could turn off presenting a certain personality trait outward. To boot, looking at this sentence again, "cute" is set in direct contention with "badass", not with "harsh".

Yeah, I think we have been round the mulberry bushes on this point a few times. I think it is clearly saying one thing (which is consistent with her drawn appearance), you think there;s a different metaphoric interpretation. I doubt we are going to get much further by discussing.

Yes, a human with dwarfism does count as a human. Indeed. This is not a matter of you thinking, this is a matter of facts. In the books, his unattractiveness goes way beyond just that dwarfism.

Well done, you have managed to state that you agree with me on a point, but still argue it anyway.

Ah, so now the problem is heroic? I thought we were talking about heroes in the sense of protagonists. How exactly do you define heroic? Good in physical combat, pure of heart, open with their intentions? Because if so, you are getting far, far more arbitrary than I thought. Both are presented as protagonists, and as characters the reader is supposed to identify with. Characters to root for, to agree that if they succeeded at their goals, the world would probably become a better place. They definitely qualify on that front.
I don't think one needs to be a knight in shining armor to fully qualify as a hero. I mean, if we restrict this even further on classical heroic traits, we're eventually gonna get "attractive" in there and lead this whole discussion completely to ridiculousness.

The problem with this paragraph is words like "now the problem is" and "you are getting" etc. That has been the standard from the start. Here is (post 696 on page 24) the statement that started this strai of argument - effectively that is what you and I have been arguing about and I think it is clearly not a reference to protagonists:

Being the most common. You don't generally see male heroes who are short, fat, or particularly ugly. Usually if they are ugly, it's usually a character flaw that makes them more human, sympathetic, or serves as something they're not pleased with (such as wearing a mask because your face is horrifically scarred).

Male heroes tend to be drawn like strong, tough warriors, because that's sexy. Those traits are male ideals because it's sexy. Some guys want to be sexy. Being someone that is strong and can protect others is a desirable sexual characteristic. You don't really see heroic male characters that are lanky, with stumpy faces, and look like a treadmill is their worst nightmare.

Oh, something does: "More stark-like features than any of his half-brothers", and "the long face of the Starks", incidentally. This feature is, while that didn't carry over into the Show (Visual adaptations oftentimes "prettyfy" characters), in the books described with a clear connotation of "unattractive", even sometimes called "horse-like". And, yeah, that might count up Arya alongside him, the girl really isn't described as pretty.

Come on now, surely you can see that this is a stretch. You argue that someone who is explitly described as harsh looking and not cute is not ugly, but someone who is described as above is?
So one of your quotes says he looks "more stark like than his brothers". Is Stark-like bad? Well I checked Brandon and Eddard Stark's pages to see if there were any comments on their appearances. Brandon is described as handsome. Eddard is described only as being less handsome than Brandon. Nothing there suggests that Stark like is a bad thing. Surely in stark contrast to the very clear descriptors of Brienne's ugliness.
As for long face, google suggest that means having an unhappy or disapointed expression. While that might not attractive looks-wise, I think you'll agree that it hardly puts them in the "clearly ugly" category we have been discussing.

If there's something in the books that you want to reference, feel free, I have them.

You can't? It's right there on the page you first linked her with:

(As for details on this, I had no clue the character even existed before you mentioned her, any information I have on her is gleaned from the same sites you sent me to.)
Incidentally, the TvTropes page also mentioned her not making the cut as a Face, and since the Pokemonfandom and TvTropes have taught me wrestling terms, "Face" is synonymous with "hero", there. Meaning her unnerving eyes disqualify her from being one. This makes three for three counts of her inclusion being at least sketchy, as per your rules (Not unambiguously ugly; not unambiguously human; not unambiguously a hero).

Ok. Fair play, I am going to have to concede this one

I wonder if part of the reason we seem to be talking accross one another is that you have chimed in late (as did I, although not so late). You rally against criteria like "heroic" as irrelevant, because they are irrelevant to the points you are trying to make, despite the fact that they may have been relevant to the points Amazon and Ashiel were debating.

As such, I suggest that instead of continuing to extend the debate on someone else's point, I would be happy to discuss your point with you. You merely need pose it. I warn you though, I may simply agree with you, which would make the conversaiton a bit boring.

[Floret]

As such, I suggest that instead of continuing to extend the debate on someone else's point, I would be happy to discuss your point with you. You merely need pose it. I warn you though, I may simply agree with you, which would make the conversaiton a bit boring.

Very well, as to not loose ourselves completely in minutia of discussing examples instead of points:

My point for my involvement in discussions like this rests on a few core assumptions:
1) I am a feminist. I choose this descriptor, because I believe men and women should be afforded equal opportunities and treatment from society; and in extension, that society be drawn up in such a way as that everyone can live the life they want (as long as they are not hurting others by doing it), without pressures to conform to misguided norms about how men or women "should" behave.
2) That this state is not the current state of society; not even in western countries.
3) That media, as a part of society and a large part of how we, as a society, communicate, has the power to shape, reinforce or sometimes change the way people see the world, and is thus relevant.
4) That the way media portrais men and women is not only a reflection of society; but can, due to changing it, influence society for the better (or worse).
5) That certain factors about media portrayal should be changed to bring society on the path to one that more closely reflects the ideal outlined in 1). This is especially relevant when media has a disparity in its treatment of male and female characters, which stands in direct contention with 1).
And, maybe 6) That the right action to achieve that change involves multiple courses of action; including being vocal about wanting to see change, where and why; helping creators that produce content more to one's own liking by information and (financial) support (Including explicit statements for WHY that support happens); producing own media more closely reflecting ones own ideals if possible (Really not that easy); calling out people on non-ideal portrayals to get rid of unintentional reinforcment of negative messages. It should not include censorship; but people telling you your work could be better, or even that it is offensive, and calling you out on your biases is not censorship.

This is the framework I am working with.
Within that framework, more specific criticisms involve:
1) Women are less likely to be portrayed at all.
2) Women are less likely to be portrayed as protagonists to an even greater degree.
3) Portrayals of women are more limited than those of male characters; or at the very least a much larger degree of female characters fall under the same body and character types than with men - meaning that even though the variance might technically cover the same spectrum, there is a larger skew towards the "center".
4) This skew involves the portrayal of women more likely to be focussed on their appearance (And looking good/sexy); more likely to be supporting characters; more likely to fullfill "passive" roles.
(My criticism for the portrayal of female armor specifically is mostly a subcategory of criticism number 4) (focus on looking good/sexy).)

...I think that should be rather comprehensive; and I will refrain from arguing the finer points of your post - I feel I could, but you are right, it wouldn't get us anywhere.

[Max_Killjoy]

Except that someone totally was. Cover up Gaslighting by glossing it over with a Good Clean Fun veneer much?

In general that's their "shtick" on the forums.

"What you said doesn't mean what you think you meant. What you read doesn't mean what you think it said. And it's all your fault."

[kraftcheese]

In general that's their "shtick" on the forums.

"What you said doesn't mean what you think you meant. What you read doesn't mean what you think it said. And it's all your fault."

It's like banging your head against a brick wall. Except you might make a dent in a brick wall.

[ImNotTrevor]

In terms of criticising passive aggresive behaviour, I suggest that people in glass houses should not throw stones. I refer you to your post 788:

Sarcasm =/= Passive Aggression

That was intended to be biting, straightforward, and obvious criticism delivered sarcastically. I'm positive it didn't work, but that wasn't the point.

As I'll note, none of the questions are unreasonable.

"What sort of movies do you like?" Is a harmless question.

"What brings you here?" Is also not exactly an accusation.

Gatekeepers play it pretty obviously when they gatekeep, IME. They don't tend to ask about your preferences, but rather quiz you about what you ought to know.

Gatekeeping:
"Do you even know the name of the creature that ate Boba Fett?"

Not Gatekeeping:
"What kind of scifi do you like, if not StarWars?"

(Also worth noting that you were the first to accuse of gatekeeping, and all other accusations followed. Unless I missed a post somewhere.)

I may not be the sole authority, but I also feel like the sole person who actually read the questions. >_>

[ImNotTrevor]

In general that's their "shtick" on the forums.

"What you said doesn't mean what you think you meant. What you read doesn't mean what you think it said. And it's all your fault."

It's like banging your head against a brick wall. Except you might make a dent in a brick wall.

Can't counterargue my point so they go after my character. Guess you're out of logic and have to assassinate my character to get places like a bunch of middleschool children.

I'll take that as a win. Thanks for playing!

[Max_Killjoy]

It's like banging your head against a brick wall. Except you might make a dent in a brick wall.

Indeed, it was.

[Ashiel]

Can't counterargue my point so they go after my character. Guess you're out of logic and have to assassinate my character to get places like a bunch of middleschool children.

I'll take that as a win. Thanks for playing!

And again this is relevant.

[2D8HP]

...more specific criticisms involve:
1) Women are less likely to be portrayed at all.

With the caveat that the media I'm most familiar with is older, and I'm not as "up" on newer stuff (I have little knowledge of post '80's video games for example), that seems largely true to me.

2) Women are less likely to be portrayed as protagonists to an even greater degree.

Also seems true to me.

3) Portrayals of women are more limited than those of male characters; or at the very least a much larger degree of female characters fall under the same body and character types than with men - meaning that even though the variance might technically cover the same spectrum, there is a larger skew towards the "center".

A quick look at the "Dreamboats" thread shows me that while they are some, it's much harder to find images of older (grey-haired) women, than grey-haired men, despite the majority of images being women/girls.

4) This skew involves the portrayal of women more likely to be focussed on their appearance (And looking good/sexy); more likely to be supporting characters; more likely to fullfill "passive" roles.
(My criticism for the portrayal of female armor specifically is mostly a subcategory of criticism number 4) (focus on looking good/sexy).....

To me the most iconic "sci-fi franchise" is Star Trek, and while it's less true for later stuff (Captain Janeway) the big three are Kirk, Spock, and Bones, all male, with Uhura, Rand, and Chapel being more "support" characters

One place that it seems to me that has more women protaganists lately is in novels.

While they were women Sci-fi and Swords & Sorcery authors with female protagonist in the past, such as C. L. Moore...

If your female and want to play a male PC, I suggest reading "Two Sought Adventure" by Leiber (a male author who came up with the phrase "Sword and Sorcery") and imitate Fafhrd or the Gray Mouser the first story of which was published in 1939.



If your male and wish to play a female PC I suggest reading "Jirel of Joiry" by Moore (a female author), and imitate Jirel the first story of which was published in 1934.



Notice the important differences.
The male protagonist uses a sword to fight evil sorcerers, while the female protaganist uses a sword to fight evil sorcerers and sorceresses.



OK to be almost serious, female authors seem to write more stories with both female and male characters, while male authors seem to mostly write about male characters (they are exceptions of course, Pratchett, a male author, for example has some novels with mostly female characters, but in general female authors seem to have more male characters, than male authors have female characters).

Male illustrators (especially amateur ones) seem to draw as many or more female subjects as male subjects, while female illustrators (again especially amateur ones) seem to draw mostly female subjects (again this is in general).

So we have more potential PC character illustrations that are female than male, while we have more potential PC written descriptions that are male.
This leads to horrible problems!


After all it's just not realistic if both females and males fight Dragons! (maybe because Dragons are Fantasy?)

Ignore the haters. Play what's fun for you.

...they more often used "nom de plumes", that disguised their sex, such as "James Tiptree Jr." (Alice Sheldon), but today a quick scan of my bookshelf shows me that while most of my books from the 20th century were by men, most of the 21st century's fiction I've read is by women, which I discussed in the Is most of the better Fantasy fiction being written by women lately? thread.

I expect in about 20 years the written fiction of today will be influential and that we will see many more women protaganists in visual media, than we do today.

Anyone taking bets?

[Amazon]

If animal characters (who I think we are taking as all being unattractive)

Don't ignore me please.

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

Spoiler

Show

And a girl looks like this:

Spoiler

Show

Don't you think we have a problem?

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

[Liquor Box]

Sarcasm =/= Passive Aggression

That was intended to be biting, straightforward, and obvious criticism delivered sarcastically. I'm positive it didn't work, but that wasn't the point.

Well, in my opinion, it didn't meet its point. Intentionally or not it came accross as passive aggresive.

As I'll note, none of the questions are unreasonable.

"What sort of movies do you like?" Is a harmless question.

"What brings you here?" Is also not exactly an accusation.

If the questions are so innocuous why did you feel the need to paraphrase rather than quote precisely?

Gatekeepers play it pretty obviously when they gatekeep, IME. They don't tend to ask about your preferences, but rather quiz you about what you ought to know.

Gatekeeping:
"Do you even know the name of the creature that ate Boba Fett?"

Not Gatekeeping:
"What kind of scifi do you like, if not StarWars?"

"Under what rock do you live" strikes me as much closer to the first of you examples than the second.

(Also worth noting that you were the first to accuse of gatekeeping, and all other accusations followed. Unless I missed a post somewhere.)

I may not be the sole authority, but I also feel like the sole person who actually read the questions. >_>

As I said, even the person who wrote them didn't say they were not 'gatekeeping' (which is your word, not mine) despite me implying they were in my first reply. Instead she appeared to try to justify her gatekeeping on the basis that she had been right that I was not much of an expert of the particular genres.

[Mendicant]

Very well, as to not loose ourselves completely in minutia of discussing examples instead of points:

This is the framework I am working with.
Within that framework, more specific criticisms involve:
1) Women are less likely to be portrayed at all.
2) Women are less likely to be portrayed as protagonists to an even greater degree.
3) Portrayals of women are more limited than those of male characters; or at the very least a much larger degree of female characters fall under the same body and character types than with men - meaning that even though the variance might technically cover the same spectrum, there is a larger skew towards the "center".
4) This skew involves the portrayal of women more likely to be focussed on their appearance (And looking good/sexy); more likely to be supporting characters; more likely to fullfill "passive" roles.
(My criticism for the portrayal of female armor specifically is mostly a subcategory of criticism number 4) (focus on looking good/sexy).)

...I think that should be rather comprehensive; and I will refrain from arguing the finer points of your post - I feel I could, but you are right, it wouldn't get us anywhere.

Liquor Box's entire argument is just niggling "finer points" with nothing particularly meaningful to show for it, so this is a good strategy. "Sam Tarly doesn't meet my continually-expanding list of criteria because he's not heroic enough" is pretty incontrovertible evidence that LB isn't arguing in good faith.

[OpiumBear666]

From what I've seen from the 5E artwork they have really tried to cover bases of diversity and non sexualization of female characters, making them having varing body types, racial backgrounds, and proper armor coverage/ not fan service scantily clad armor as was the cliche of yesteryear for female character design in fantasy.

[2D8HP]

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

I'm reminded of an Oglaf comic (which I can't share here because Oglaf) that made a joke about how so often male monsters look "monstrous", but female monsters are drawn to look "sexy".

Well here's this, which is still somewhat

Spoiler: relevant

Show

[Talakeal]

Can we talk some more about the whole male power fantasy thing?

I am really trying to figure out where the line is drawn and am not able to come up with anything.

If you took, say, Conan, but then changed his gender but kept everything else exactly the same, would that still be a male power fantasy?

Also, what seperates the male power fantasy from male leads of romance novels?

[Keltest]

Also, what seperates the male power fantasy from male leads of romance novels?

Usually the lady clinging to them. Its only a power fantasy when you crush your enemies with your every movement, not your (implied) loved ones.

[slachance6]

Usually the lady clinging to them. Its only a power fantasy when you crush your enemies with your every movement, not your (implied) loved ones.

But then what if you just changed the genders? This theoretical female Conan would still be crushing her enemies.

[Keltest]

But then what if you just changed the genders? This theoretical female Conan would still be crushing her enemies.

I don't think crushing your loved ones is a female power fantasy either.

Unless youre a mother-in-law, I guess?

[Mendicant]

Can we talk some more about the whole male power fantasy thing?

I am really trying to figure out where the line is drawn and am not able to come up with anything.

If you took, say, Conan, but then changed his gender but kept everything else exactly the same, would that still be a male power fantasy?

Also, what seperates the male power fantasy from male leads of romance novels?

A male power fantasy is something a male would identify and fantasize about *being*. If you switch the gender, then no, it's not really a male power fantasy.

The depictions of women that are generally objected to are first and foremost meant as something a male might fantasize about *having*, and only incidentally as something a woman or girl would want to *be*.

That both depictions include a lot of skin is beside the point. Conan, with a bloody axe and a woman hanging off of him, is qualitatively different from Red Sonja with her back arched and twisted crazily in order to show both buttcheeks and both boobs.

[kraftcheese]

Obviously no-one ever "wins" an argument (outside of debate club I guess), but if this thread has hopefully done anything, it's brought up issues that other people might not have considered before, or considered as issues before.

[kraftcheese]

Can we talk some more about the whole male power fantasy thing?

I am really trying to figure out where the line is drawn and am not able to come up with anything.

If you took, say, Conan, but then changed his gender but kept everything else exactly the same, would that still be a male power fantasy?

Also, what seperates the male power fantasy from male leads of romance novels?

I always felt like something being a male power fantasy was about how the character acts and is reacted to by others in the piece of media; what they get to do, how they get to drive the story, what they're shown doing if it's an image.

Also, take into account the society the media was created in, etc. My 2 cents.

[1337 b4k4]

Can we talk some more about the whole male power fantasy thing?

I am really trying to figure out where the line is drawn and am not able to come up with anything.

If you took, say, Conan, but then changed his gender but kept everything else exactly the same, would that still be a male power fantasy?

Also, what seperates the male power fantasy from male leads of romance novels?

This is what I was trying to get at earlier when I was asking for the 3 definitions. Because I honestly can't think of any way you could sexualize a male character that doesn't usually fall under the "male power fantasy" anyway. Which then to me implies the issue is not the sexual female characters, but the fact that being sexual isn't yet a female power fantasy. I mean there are ways to portray men as emasculated, which (for at least a decent majority of males) wouldn't fall under the "power (or really any) fantasy" heading, but usually those portrayals don't fall under the sexualized category either (that is to say, an emasculated male isn't generally a female sex fantasy). So I'll ask again in case someone missed it before, if you generally believe that most of the sexualized males in media don't count because they're either completely or mostly "male power fantasy", then can you please provide the following:

A) A definition of "male power fantasy"
B) A definition or example of a "sexualized male"
C) A defintion of B which does not overlap with or generally fall under A. Ideally we want a definition that if we applied to a male media representation, you would agree that they are sexualized and not a "power fantasy", and if we swapped the genders and applied to a female media representation we would get the same result.

[2D8HP]

But then what if you just changed the genders? This theoretical female Conan would still be crushing her enemies.

Does no one read up-thread?

So, something like this?:

Full confession: I don't reas every post before responding either, or I would've cut more slack.

Sorry.

[Talakeal]

Does no one read up-thread?




Full confession: I don't reas every post before responding either, or I would've cut more slack.

Sorry.

That doesnt really look like a female version of Conan to me, it seems that the artist went out of their way to make her look ugly, which I dont think has ever been the case with Conan.

She also looks very androgynous while Conan was very masculine. Of course, one could argue that turning a masculine character female would result in a masculine looking woman rather than a feminine one, depending on how you interpreted the statmenent.

But is that character really a power fantasy for anyone, male or female?

[Mendicant]

This is what I was trying to get at earlier when I was asking for the 3 definitions. Because I honestly can't think of any way you could sexualize a male character that doesn't usually fall under the "male power fantasy" anyway. Which then to me implies the issue is not the sexual female characters, but the fact that being sexual isn't yet a female power fantasy. I mean there are ways to portray men as emasculated, which (for at least a decent majority of males) wouldn't fall under the "power (or really any) fantasy" heading, but usually those portrayals don't fall under the sexualized category either (that is to say, an emasculated male isn't generally a female sex fantasy). So I'll ask again in case someone missed it before, if you generally believe that most of the sexualized males in media don't count because they're either completely or mostly "male power fantasy", then can you please provide the following:

A) A definition of "male power fantasy"
B) A definition or example of a "sexualized male"
C) A defintion of B which does not overlap with or generally fall under A. Ideally we want a definition that if we applied to a male media representation, you would agree that they are sexualized and not a "power fantasy", and if we swapped the genders and applied to a female media representation we would get the same result.

"Sexualized" and "sexually attractive" are not the same thing. Just because a male power fantasy generally includes being good-looking is immaterial to whether or not the depicted character is being sexualized. They might be, but can just as easily not be, and even when they are they're usually pictured in an attitude of dominance.

Spoiler: Nightwing is a character who is frequently sexualized. He might or might not be your idea of a power fantasy as well, but the two pieces are largely immaterial to each other.

Show

Compare the following images:

Spoiler: Batman, specifically.

Show

In both of these, you've got Bruce Wayne. It's the same character, with the same basic musculature and facial features. Can you identify which one is sexualized?