Retreading "feminism"
Well, what intrigues me about Twilight and other similar supernatural TV shows and movies is the clear pattern from which they are taking their cues, which is gothic romance novels. Buffy in the Buffy-verse, Bella in Twilight, and Sookie in TrueBlood all share the similar problem of being irresistibly attractive to gorgeous men traveling under a curse. Some people would say these shows are products of women trapped in a patriarchal role because they spend so much time worried about the protagonist's relationship to men, but IMO if women themselves aren't allowed to decide what they enjoy then the goal isn't liberation so much as demonizing personal choice with regard to tradition.
|
Here's the thing - certain representations of men in fiction end up being so dissonant to actual real-life men's idea of how men should look and behave that they appear to feel threatened by the very idea that these kinds of men can actually exist and be seen as attractive by the opposite sex. We should kill it with fire before it spreads and infects real people and devalues the insensitive butch juerks we've spend our lives trying to be.
Now, obviously that's not the whole story with Twilight, because that mess has more reasons to hate it than I can name, and so the sparkling vampires and shirtless werewolves end up picking up a lot of hate for a whole myriad of different reasons, not all of which have to do with their basic concept. In fact, I think that one of the biggest anchors around the whole series - other than that it comes off like bad fanfiction - is Bella Swan herself. Yes, men are indeed objectified though her eyes, but Bella Swan herself is objectified by the way she is defined by the men in her life and her seemingly singular purpose in existence being to string these men who like her along like puppets.
That's where we loop right back into the objectification of women as hollow people who only exist to "be female" and to be dominated by men. Obviously, that's mostly down to bad storytelling, the central singularity around which every problem in the Twilight Saga orbits, but objectification on both sides is still a big god damn problem.
I do believe we can use Twilight as a good lesson in the objectification of men, however, both the good and the bad. And, yes, there can be good in objectification, because I refuse to believe that anyone can look at those ripped shirtless werewolves and instantly know why people want to see them, or indeed look at the dark, myserious, tortured and brooding vampires and realise why they serve as fetish fuel. And if that sort of objectification ruffles the feathers of a few men: Good! Maybe if more people are forced to confront their own self-image, we won't have as much stereotyping in popular media.
I will say one thing - while I feel the objectification of women in popular culture is far more severe and unfair, it is also more widely accepted as a problem and those women who want to define themselves have more resources and support to rely on, and slowly but surely, different representations of women in fiction are creeping in. Men, on the other hand, though their objectification isn't nearly as severe, still live in a constant pissing contest with each other and still have to live in shame when they don't conform to society's idea of the super man. Even today, "geeky guys" still get picked on, just to pull a random example out of a hat. Sure, not as much as once upon a time, just because the Internet made it clear that there were a HELL of a lot more of them than anyone ever suspected, and easily enough to have a community just made up of geeks and nerds where they can be themselves without fear of ridicule.
My point is that it's unfair to say that men don't face objectification and sexualisation and peer pressure and aren't held up to unnecessary standards of behaviour and appearance. The extent to which this happens is debatable, of course, but it happens on all levels of society. So much of male identity is still taboo and crossing over that taboo causes so many men to erupt in either towering rage or abject disgust. Because men aren't supposed to do "that" or be like "that." Why? Because they simply aren't. If you're a man, you're supposed to be a MAN and no-one really talks about what that should mean or if it should be such a stringent rule, but everyone is supposed to instinctively know about it. And if you don't conform, then you're not a man.
Women, thought the hard work and dedication of many activists, have managed to bring their gender identity issues to the forefront and are doing something about it. Men, even to this day, are still ashamed to admit that male gender identity issues even exist. And, speaking as a man, that's just sad and depressing in so many ways.
*edit*
As an addendum, here's a question that most men wouldn't ask and few will have a good answer for: Why can't men wear skirts? And before you say it, that's not a skirt, it's a KILT! And if it's not a kilt, it's a robe. And if it's not a robe it's a tunic. And if it's not that, it's something else, but it's NOT a skirt, god damn it! Because skirts are for women, and mean can wear women's clothes. Because men are ashamed of their femininity. Men are ashamed to be "like women," to the point where telling a man he's like a woman is considered one of the worst insults you can throw around. Both because far too many men are conditioned to he jerks and see women as the inferior gender and because far too many men are conditioned to believe that a very narrow, very specific ideal is the only way to be a man and everything else is shameful. And not only are men conditioned to be narrow-minded about their own self-image, but they're conditioned to be ashamed of discussing it, because it's not MANLY to be sentimental and introverted and sentimental.
Yes, I admit, women have severe problems with gender inequality, but men have problems even admitting having problems, which is sorry in a whole different way.
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Another from the Swim Suit edition! When Jeans not a threat to the planet, she ummm...Well...Im not sure what Cyclops is reading to her, but at least hes there, and woudn't you boys love to get a copy of that book! I mean, it has her in a full....well...
![]() http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs71/f/20...rzerox21xx.jpg |
![Stick Out Tongue](images/smilies/tongue.gif)
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
![Wink](images/smilies/wink.gif)
The BrandX Collection
I forgot what I was saying... Right, "huge" females! Yeah, I definitely don't mean something like the current Huge male, but with breasts. Not even close.
|
Possibly with a side order of "plump faces" and "tops with convex tummies", although those might end up looking more pregnant than Rubenesque.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
My impression is that what you want when you say "Huge Female" is a set of "Tops with abs" under Upper Body for women and "arms with muscles" under Sleeves for women.
|
But yes, what you describe is more or less what I want that I consider feasible
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
My point is that it's unfair to say that men don't face objectification and sexualisation and peer pressure and aren't held up to unnecessary standards of behaviour and appearance. The extent to which this happens is debatable, of course, but it happens on all levels of society. So much of male identity is still taboo and crossing over that taboo causes so many men to erupt in either towering rage or abject disgust. Because men aren't supposed to do "that" or be like "that." Why? Because they simply aren't. If you're a man, you're supposed to be a MAN and no-one really talks about what that should mean or if it should be such a stringent rule, but everyone is supposed to instinctively know about it. And if you don't conform, then you're not a man.
|
You make many good points. I just want to piggyback and add a few short responses.
I don't think that either sexualization or objectification are necessarily bad things. On the one hand, they can be used to dismiss people, but on the other hand, it's just sex. To some extent it is unclear to me whether discussions about female avatars being "too sexy" is actually an issue with gender power balance or just an objection to sexuality intruding into the game at all. If the answer to the question isn't "make men sexier," then to some extent IMO it is the latter case. Some people do view sexualized people as having less inherit value and dismiss them, but this is not an automatic truth. Sexualization is not an automatic shortcut to devaluation unless sexuality is viewed as dirty. I would even say to some extent that too much concern about it risks recategorizing women into madonna/harlot archetypes.
In the case of men, for most of this discussion we've been lumping all men into one large category. But here's a question: How many Hollywood movies are there starring Asian men who are marketed for their sex appeal? I can think of none (but maybe I'm just out of touch). Asian men are almost never sexualized in Western media. According to some of what has been posited in this thread, that should be empowering. IMO the opposite is true. It's the fact that they are NOT sexualized that is problematic.
"But in our enthusiasm, we could not resist a radical overhaul of the system, in which all of its major weaknesses have been exposed, analyzed, and replaced with new weaknesses."
-- Bruce Leverett, Register Allocation in Optimizing Compilers
I don't think that either sexualization or objectification are necessarily bad things. On the one hand, they can be used to dismiss people, but on the other hand, it's just sex. To some extent it is unclear to me whether discussions about female avatars being "too sexy" is actually an issue with gender power balance or just an objection to sexuality intruding into the game at all. If the answer to the question isn't "make men sexier," then to some extent IMO it is the latter case. Some people do view sexualized people as having less inherit value and dismiss them, but this is not an automatic truth. Sexualization is not an automatic shortcut to devaluation unless sexuality is viewed as dirty. I would even say to some extent that too much concern about it risks recategorizing women into madonna/harlot archetypes.
|
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
Yes, indeed there seems to be a problem that ANY sexualisation or objectification is seen as a bad thing and characters portrayed in a sexual manner - even if there's more to them than that - draw immense ire just for BEING sexual. As gender roles go, someone made a good point before - men who sleep around are seen as greater men, demonstrating both charm stamina, yet women who sleep around are seen as lesser women, demonstrating loose morals and unfaithfulness. That in itself is a HUGE problem that needs to die in a fire, I don't think there's much room for debate here, but it's the sign of a deeper "something" afoot.
Are we, indeed, looking for a better way to retain fictional characters' sexuality, or are we looking to make them asexual in general? Are we outraged at gratuitous fanservice cheesecakes because we believe that kind of sexuality can be done better, or are we outraged because we don't feel that they should HAVE sexuality in any outgoing form in the first place? I know for a fact that people in general will groan at fanservice pretty much on principle and never really stop to explain why to such an extent that I'm starting to wonder if some even need a reason to hate it.
Now, maybe it's just because I'm a dumb guy, maybe it's because my morals aren't nearly as high as I make them appear, or maybe I'm just a letch... But I love fanservice! Obviously, just on its own its dumb, pointless and intellectual uninteresting, but hey - it's pretty to look at, to me at least. And if it isn't to me, it is to someone. The point where I feel fanservice in particular and sexual objectification in general become damaging both to specific characters and to "the industry" in general is when they either do damage to otherwise compelling characters by carving out their interesting personality and replacing it with breasts, or otherwise using sex appeal in place of good writing so what you end up with is schlock where you could have had a compelling story.
To me, fanservice is like junk food - it's nice to have, but you can't really subsist on it for long before it starts having bad effects on you. A movie, game or story that's nothing but sexy fanservice is like eating Big Macs breakfast, lunch and dinner, and that's just not a very good thing. It may be unpopular of me to say this, but if a story is decent and the characters are drawn up well enough... I kind of like a little fanservice here and there, provided it doesn't demolish the characters involved in it.
I guess the broader issue here is one of sexuality - is its very presence in a work supposed to be offensive in itself, or is its application and pervasiveness that's the issue? Do we want to stop seeing cheesecakes and beefecakes entirely, viewing them as something unambiguously bad for a story, or do we simply want to balance the sexy with the dramatic? Because for me, at least, the latter is the clear answer.
At the risk of shooting any credibility I have in the head, I... Kind of don't like games and stories as much if they don't have at least a little tittilation, a little fanservice or a little "something" along those lines. Even at the best of times, even in the best of stories, I feel there's room for a little bit of this. If I made a pretty girl who spends the entire story encased in a shapeless suit of armour, then I'll have at least one instance where she steps out, just for the sake of having a pretty girl on-screen. I believe that's more or less the root of Samus Aran's huge popularity - she's kickass role model AND she looks pretty.
Now, whether or not other people feel the same way, that I can't say, though I'd be lying if I said I didn't suspect many did. My point, though, is that in our efforts to make things fair and to abolish shameless exploitation, that we don't go all the way take out even the fun bits, as well. At the end of the day, objectification in itself is not a bad thing, and done right it can be fun as well as... "Moving." As such, we really shouldn't be arguing against sexualisation, so much as arguing for better ways to use it to the benefit of a story, instead of using it IN PLACE of a story.
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Possibly with a side order of "plump faces" and "tops with convex tummies", although those might end up looking more pregnant than Rubenesque.
|
I've actually been very careful to not say "Huge Females" specifically, ever since that ooold suggestion on the subject where I first had make that distinction. It's less about me being pedantic and more because the term I prefer to use - Muscular Females - is closer to what I'm talking about. It's less about body mass and more about body physique, if that makes sense.
|
I don't think that either sexualization or objectification are necessarily bad things. On the one hand, they can be used to dismiss people, but on the other hand, it's just sex. To some extent it is unclear to me whether discussions about female avatars being "too sexy" is actually an issue with gender power balance or just an objection to sexuality intruding into the game at all. If the answer to the question isn't "make men sexier," then to some extent IMO it is the latter case. Some people do view sexualized people as having less inherit value and dismiss them, but this is not an automatic truth. Sexualization is not an automatic shortcut to devaluation unless sexuality is viewed as dirty. I would even say to some extent that too much concern about it risks recategorizing women into madonna/harlot archetypes.
|
That is my objection to Sister Psyche's portrayal, especially as it contrasts with BAB on the tutorial splash page and pretty much everyone else on the SSA splash page. If I'm a civilian having my purse stolen, I wouldn't expect her to save me. I wouldn't expect her to do much of anything teen-rated. BAB can save me, she can go stand over there and look pretty. That is objectification, and no, it is never a good thing.
In the case of men, for most of this discussion we've been lumping all men into one large category. But here's a question: How many Hollywood movies are there starring Asian men who are marketed for their sex appeal? I can think of none (but maybe I'm just out of touch). Asian men are almost never sexualized in Western media. According to some of what has been posited in this thread, that should be empowering. IMO the opposite is true. It's the fact that they are NOT sexualized that is problematic. |
And no, it isn't empowering, I don't think anyone would imply that. People have sex. If they didn't there would be no people. The point is that people do a lot of other things too, some of which are actually accomplishments that they should be proud of. Being sexually desirable isn't anywhere near the same level as, say, brain surgery, or writing a (good) novel, or fighting off an alien invasion. But for women, it's often treated as though it should overshadow all those accomplishments.
Eva Destruction AR/Fire/Munitions Blaster
Darkfire Avenger DM/SD/Body Scrapper
Arc ID#161629 Freaks, Geeks, and Men in Black
Arc ID#431270 Until the End of the World
Here is another angle:
As the author of a story (even if it's just the bio of your ingame avatar) why create a character that is NOT sexually attractive to you?
Sexuality is orthogonal to the competence or empathic qualities of a character, so why not include it, unless some other aspect of the character specifically calls for them not to be attractive, or for them to be asexual? Even if just so that they can contrast with the more attractive characters?
On a related note, it is possible to divide all stories/protagonists into a few buckets:
1: "This Happened"-type stories that are intended to evoke a feeling of realism. Many Horror movies are this, along with most Historical. Most protagonists in most stories are intended to appeal to the audience, but these are least likely to do so via sexualization. If a character is attractive, it's just a quality, not the point of the character (unless it is also the point of the story).
2: Empowerment Fantasies, such as most action-adventure and fantasy pieces. These characters are usually ideals/icons that the author aspires to, or projects that their demographic wants to aspire to. These characters are usually sexy (however the author or the Meddling Executives paying for the media define that) and there are often ancillary characters around just to provide them and the audience with sex of one form or another.
3: "You Too"-type stories, where the protagonist is the object of an Empowerment Fantasy, but is specifically singled out to be some kind of Everyperson, or even handicapped or isolated in some way. These characters are almost never conventionally sexy, but are almost always attached to someone who is. Even Shrek could be seen as an example of this.
It all comes down to the type of story you are telling and on what level(s) you want the characters to appeal. I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with choosing to make the way a character appeals to be a sexual way.
Once you decide to make a character sexy, however, that's when you enter some interesting territory. "This character is going to be sexy. But to whom? To me? To my target audience? Only to in-story characters?"
I think that where a lot of authors fall down (or are knocked down by those pesky meddling executives) is when they decide to make a character sexy without thinking up the to whom and why, as if there was a universal set of values that was held up as sexy to everyone 'normal'.
And recursively over time, that undefined, unspoken set of values becomes indeed true.
A thought for perspective:
Roughly 200 years ago we were in the Victorian Age. At that time, men were not sexy. What I mean by that is, by the standards of that age, it was (outwardly) considered immoral to want to have sex with a man, regardless of whether you were male or female.
The current fixation with a supermodel body type, chainmail bikinis, and such? Dust in the wind.
Want what you want. It's like a corrolary to Sturgeon's Law: no matter what it is you want, there are at least a million people on this planet who will beleive you crazy and dangerous for wanting it.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
As the author of a story (even if it's just the bio of your ingame avatar) why create a character that is NOT sexually attractive to you?
Sexuality is orthogonal to the competence or empathic qualities of a character, so why not include it, unless some other aspect of the character specifically calls for them not to be attractive, or for them to be asexual? Even if just so that they can contrast with the more attractive characters? |
For instance, I have a former bounty hunter and mercenary who sold her services across the magic planes. She is missing one whole arm, half of her other arm, one whole leg, most of her other leg, one eye and most of her angelic wings, now dried up and useless. You'd think that such a character would be grotesque, crippled as she is, yet I went out of my way to replace her missing limbs with sleek, cool cybernetics, emphasise what body parts she still has unharmed, put a cool red eye over the scar on her face and actually emphasise her "broken wings" as a character-defining trait, and even worked the corruption of her soul by evil in the form of a Rularuu Katana.
So Hatarla came to be, and she's one of my favourite characters
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
![](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v711/nero_orog/HatarlaAction.jpg)
I'm not sure if I should consider it a failing of mine as a writer that I can't write for characters I don't like. The pretentious snob in me wants to claim that you're not a true artist until you can face the darkness of displeasure and address it in your stories while the brainless yahoo in me wants to assert that who cares if it's deep and artistic if it's fun and it looks good? I'm frankly torn, but making characters I actually enjoy looking at and playing has served me well so far, that much I know
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
*edit*
Stupid me, there was more I wanted to say:
Once you decide to make a character sexy, however, that's when you enter some interesting territory. "This character is going to be sexy. But to whom? To me? To my target audience? Only to in-story characters?"
|
Considering that I'm only an "author" to the extent to which making characters in a video game and writing stories that all of five people ever actually read... My answer is rather a lot simpler - when I make sexy characters, they're only required to be sexy TO ME. Absent of any monetary payment, fame or obligation, I create work only for myself to enjoy, and as long as that is true, I'll continue to make it such that I enjoy it. I'm somewhat lucky to have a diverse array of tastes, so a lot of what I make eventually finds at least a couple of people who like it, but even then, it's still from myself for myself.
I know this doesn't answer the broader question of what responsibility creators of art and fiction should have for shaping society's beliefs, desires and opinions, but sadly, I don't think I'm smart enough to comment here. I don't think I'm smart enough to comment on broader social themes simply because my mindframe is a much more isolationst one. Rather than champion creators' responsibility to shepherd society, I prefer to champion each individual person's responsibility to comprehend his or her desires and make them known to said creators so that they can be better informed as to what people want them to create. In simpler terms, I don't think it's other people's responsibility to shape my with their work, it's my responsibility to shape myself and influence their works as a result.
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
As it happens, not all of my characters are sexually attractive to me (although they are all appealing to me in some way) but that isn't my point.
Part of your question seems to be a variation of: "Is there something wrong with wanting characters to be appealing in a certain way that may detract from their mainstream sexuality?"
My short answer is a resounding NO.
But your question brings me back around to the question of 'why is being sexy looked at as a negative so often? Why, in the case of female characters, is it often to some extent in opposition to their appearing strong?'
When I look at anime, I see a whole group of sub-genres built around male characters that are physically less intimidating than the females around them, or that are willful, effective, intimidating characters in spite of being physically small, soft, and emotionally sensitive.
I don't see nearly as much of that in the West.
In the West, it still seems to boil down to the idea (which may only exist in the collective heads of the Meddling Executives) that in order to be attractive, a woman must at least pay lip service to the idea of needing a male protector (in a soft appearance, if nothing else). The corrolary being that to be attractive, a male character must be sexy/cute (semi-optional) and must at least pay lip service to the idea of being able to protect a female partner.
The only Western movies that spring to mind that counter my own argument are Geena Davis movies of all things: The Long Kiss Goodnight and Cutthroat Island. The first one that came to mind was Terminator 2, and that had The Arnold. I suppose you could make a case for the Alien movies.
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
Rather than champion creators' responsibility to shepherd society, I prefer to champion each individual person's responsibility to comprehend his or her desires and make them known to said creators so that they can be better informed as to what people want them to create. In simpler terms, I don't think it's other people's responsibility to shape my with their work, it's my responsibility to shape myself and influence their works as a result.
|
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
[QUOTE=Eva Destruction;3912228]They would, since we can't make a butt to match.
The arms are still too puny though. No matter how much of a muscular texture you put on them, they still can't be anything more than "wiry." While this would be better than what we have now, it's much prefer the ability to thicken them up a bit....or in the case of male avatars, thin them out.
It entirely depends on the context. Are you talking about a walking blow-up doll, or are you talking about a person who also happens to be sexually appealing? In other words, are you saying "she's competent and smart and sexy" or are you just saying "she's got a great body?" In certain contexts the second is acceptable. But we are playing a teen-rated game and most of those contexts have no place here. We are here to punch bad guys or good guys in the face. If we want to look good while doing it, great, but the primary concern here should still be the face-punching.
That is my objection to Sister Psyche's portrayal, especially as it contrasts with BAB on the tutorial splash page and pretty much everyone else on the SSA splash page. If I'm a civilian having my purse stolen, I wouldn't expect her to save me. I wouldn't expect her to do much of anything teen-rated. BAB can save me, she can go stand over there and look pretty. That is objectification, and no, it is never a good thing.
[QUOTE]
Context for TEEN Rating? Teen Rating is all about graphic details.
Why they can have avatars running around with almost nothing on, because as long as certain parts of the body aren't shown, it's able to be rated as TEEN.
In fact, the only they you can't get away with in a TEEN rating is excessive swearing.
Mention of sex, raep, murder, incest, racism, just about anything, can fit into the TEEN rating, if you avoid actual detailed accounts of all of it.
They can easily have said Tyrant and Dominatrix are in a relationship/dating with each other, kept it a TEEN rating, as long as we didn't get an erotic novel about it.
Lots of killing? Well then, don't show blood!
What? You think movies got more violent? Watch an old John Wayne movie. Lots of deaths! It just wasn't graphic. The bad guys (and good guys) were shot and fell over, versus today's "Oh look! We see his spleen and brain matter all over the pavement!"
As for Sister Psyche's portrayal on the splash page...she's looking on in horror as meteors strike down on galaxy City destroying everything. The "Oooh my gawd..." look. While Babs is showing the after effect look of it all of "Gonna kick these Shivan #&%#!"
Maybe the problem is less of how Sister Psyche is drawn, and more of a problem with people thinking a hero can't have an "Oh no!" look or perhaps the artist couldn't draw an "Oh no!" look, or perhaps other things went through people's minds because they see sexy Sister Psyche in a pose with her mouth open!
Obviously I seem to be in the minority, but when I first say the splash page, I didn't think any sexual about it, and though that was her in a stunned look as meteors are falling around GC.
BrandX Future Staff Fighter
![Wink](images/smilies/wink.gif)
The BrandX Collection
As for Sister Psyche's portrayal on the splash page...she's looking on in horror as meteors strike down on galaxy City destroying everything. The "Oooh my gawd..." look. While Babs is showing the after effect look of it all of "Gonna kick these Shivan #&%#!"
Maybe the problem is less of how Sister Psyche is drawn, and more of a problem with people thinking a hero can't have an "Oh no!" look or perhaps the artist couldn't draw an "Oh no!" look, or perhaps other things went through people's minds because they see sexy Sister Psyche in a pose with her mouth open! Obviously I seem to be in the minority, but when I first say the splash page, I didn't think any sexual about it, and though that was her in a stunned look as meteors are falling around GC. |
No... the problem is that she looks literally like a blow-up doll.
|
That and her portrayal in the comics and game seems on the surface to be full of contradictions (I'd like to see the costumes she wore in 1860, 1890, 1920, 1940, and 1960). She is either a very deep, complex character with enough issues to give Asuka Langley pause, or she's suffering more from Multiple Writers Syndrome than other characters.
Hickman! Hickman! Hickman! *sacrifices a pair of pants* Any insight you are allowed to share?
Story Arcs I created:
Every Rose: (#17702) Villainous vs Legacy Chain. Forget Arachnos, join the CoT!
Cosplay Madness!: (#3643) Neutral vs Custom Foes. Heroes at a pop culture convention!
Kiss Hello Goodbye: (#156389) Heroic vs Custom Foes. Film Noir/Hardboiled detective adventure!
I think the problem is that she is slipping toward the role of 'default token hero to be horrified/fearful/despairing'.
|
The fact that BAB is standing next to her looking angry and strong and awesome makes a hideous contrast with her wide-eyed look of childish horror.
As an addendum, here's a question that most men wouldn't ask and few will have a good answer for: Why can't men wear skirts? And before you say it, that's not a skirt, it's a KILT! And if it's not a kilt, it's a robe. And if it's not a robe it's a tunic. And if it's not that, it's something else, but it's NOT a skirt, god damn it! Because skirts are for women, and mean can wear women's clothes. Because men are ashamed of their femininity. Men are ashamed to be "like women," to the point where telling a man he's like a woman is considered one of the worst insults you can throw around. Both because far too many men are conditioned to he jerks and see women as the inferior gender and because far too many men are conditioned to believe that a very narrow, very specific ideal is the only way to be a man and everything else is shameful. And not only are men conditioned to be narrow-minded about their own self-image, but they're conditioned to be ashamed of discussing it, because it's not MANLY to be sentimental and introverted and sentimental.
|
As a man, I can say this: I would not avoid wearing a skirt because of the fact that it's women's clothing. I avoid wearing a skirt because of the fact that a) I would not look good in a skirt and am unwilling to make the effort that it would take to rectify such, and b) any advantages to be gained for me to wear a skirt (increased airflow around the legs to keep cool, for example) are adequately provided by shorts without the drawbacks (restriction of movement, risk of exposure, risk of harassment, etc). It's the same reason I don't wear a kilt, robe, or whathaveyou though I'm sure my fiancee would love to see it.
Star Trek: The Next Generation tried doing away with the artificial division between men's and women's clothing in its first season. Ostensibly, both men and women were allowed to choose from the "pant" version or the "skirt/skant" version of the uniform. The results showed up in the background a few times, disappearing with the first episode of the second season. I'll note that while both Deanna Troi and Tasha Yar wore the skant at least once, we never did see Will Riker or Worf in one...
![](http://www.geeksix.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/star-trek-mens-skirt.png)
And for contrast, the same skirt on a woman:
![](http://i128.photobucket.com/albums/p179/WKYanks/Star%20Trek/Deanna%20Troi/farpoint2_080.jpg)
Now, I know it's not permissible to talk about the distinguished competition on these forums, but suffice it to say that any MMO which might theoretically be based on this franchise would not offer as an option for male captains the ability to wear a skirt, even though that has appeared in the IP upon which said MMO is theoretically based.
But herein lies the question: if this division between skirts and no skirts exists in any game, what causes it? Is it the reinforcement of gender roles? Is it because it just plain looks bad? Is it because the developers want to shy away from potential controversy and/or harassment among their playerbase? Is it because the expectation among the devs is that the number of people using males skirts would be too low to justify the manpower involved in adding it? Is it all of the above?
I would say that the last is probably the best answer. That said, the "no men in skirts" rule isn't universally applied:
![](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ajwz1FVsQSE/TSy0BvneYmI/AAAAAAAADSA/mBWHRAS5oHE/s1600/gladiator_image.jpg)
Guess it's ok if it's a period piece. Or maybe it's just ok if it's "killin' people-wear"
![Big Grin](images/smilies/biggrin.gif)
My story arcs: #2370- Noah Reborn, #18672- The Clockwork War, #31490- Easy Money
Sartre once said, "Hell is other people." What does that make an MMO?
But herein lies the question: if this division between skirts and no skirts exists in any game, what causes it? Is it the reinforcement of gender roles? Is it because it just plain looks bad? Is it because the developers want to shy away from potential controversy and/or harassment among their playerbase? Is it because the expectation among the devs is that the number of people using males skirts would be too low to justify the manpower involved in adding it? Is it all of the above?
|
![](http://media.comicvine.com/uploads/0/1772/119407-77157-loki_super.gif)
Well, maybe loincloths.
![](http://www.marveldirectory.com/pictures/individuals/g_1d/galactus.gif)
Armored kilts.
![](http://www.marveldirectory.com/pictures/individuals/d_1d/drdoom.jpg)
Tunics.
![](http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bdVR-JIDi2g/SZDkcaa2aZI/AAAAAAAAMj8/nEuQNwmp1Ls/s400/behold-the-evil-of-darkseid.jpeg)
Definitely tunics.
![](http://www.valiantfan.com/valiant/CD/vh1/Magnus/magnus0.jpg)
... tunics?
@SPTrashcan
Avatar by Toxic_Shia
Why MA ratings should be changed from stars to "like" or "dislike"
A better algorithm for ordering MA arcs
Who is the upskirt shot you cannot unsee?
Who is the ROCK and the CHAIN and the LIGHTNING?
![]() |
My characters at Virtueverse
Faces of the City
Having seen you quote me, I suddenly realise that I should have proofread my own post. My spelling is atrocious! And I can't even edit it now that you've quoted it
But herein lies the question: if this division between skirts and no skirts exists in any game, what causes it? Is it the reinforcement of gender roles? Is it because it just plain looks bad? Is it because the developers want to shy away from potential controversy and/or harassment among their playerbase? Is it because the expectation among the devs is that the number of people using males skirts would be too low to justify the manpower involved in adding it? Is it all of the above?
|
When you see men insult each other through skirts, you have to acknowledge there's something more than just pure fashion and convenience going on there. When men demonise women's clothing as something that would shame them for wearing it, there has to be a deeper to it than the fact that - and I agree with this - it just looks goofy. This returns me to the issue of what a MAN is supposed to be and how shameful it is to not conform to that image of a MAN, and how in turn this feeds into some men's obsession with demonstrating masculinity, even at the price of looking like a complete prat.
To return to your question, I think the reason few games give men skirts are pretty well summarised in the Big Blue Dress: "So why I ask, this doesn't make much sense, that a man of my stature should have to wear a dress? I mean what, may I inquire, were you thinking on that day, when you conjured up for a man like me a robe? I look so gaaay!" I know this song is purely done for parody, but it encapsulates the entirety of the problem of perception in one single verse.
Once you take this attitude under consideration, it just doesn't make sense to develop skirts for men from a developer's perspective. Why raise a controversy and waste resources to create a costume piece that most men would be to ashamed or weirded out to wear? And, mind you, I'm not defending this train of thought, but I'm saying I get it. Sure, muscular women, tall women, big women - those might be concepts not many will specifically want, but things like skirts and heels and fishnets for men are likely to go beyond that and cause a huge mess of backlash.
While I'm completely sympathetic towards the problems of female sexual objectification and would strongly support granting more diversity to female characters, I also understand that backwards as it is, society has at least grown up enough to if not accept, then at least tolerate women who diverge from the norm. Society has not yet grown up enough to really comprehend men who diverge, however, and I can guarantee that the day something like this comes out, someone's going to make a transvestite just to be a dick, someone else is going to take a screenshot and come make an angry rant and we'll tumble over backwards into "Won't somebody think of the children!" territory.
Would I be against skirts and heels and such for men? Of course not. Would I use them? Eh, probably not, but if this thread has taught me one thing, it's that exploring the depths of sexuality is rarely a bad thing, even if you're exploring in places you're not comfortable with. I know I'll at least TRY to use and see what comes of it. I've made a career out of pulling off weird and questionable designs, and that's just one more thing to experiment with
![Smile](images/smilies/smile.gif)
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
It was difficult for me to isolate a specific quote to reply to, so I'm going to try to respond to the gist of the conversation.
RE: The main message about the way men should look in society
IMO it is a bit too simple to say that men (or women) are "told" to look or behave a certain way. While there is a mainstream message about powerful men, that is just one of many available messages. I think that there are multiple channels that people are able to tune in to and that people change these channels depending on mood or environment.
While on the one hand there is an idealized male image as a rugged provider, there are other equally powerful images, such as man as immoral predator (any serial killer or gangster movie), man as incompetent loser (many comedies), and perhaps most prolifically man as too self absorbed and needing to get back in touch with his wife/kids/dreams/what really matters in life. To be recursive for a second, it could be argued that what we are doing in this thread is not combating commoditized images of men but reinforcing the commoditized version of men where men are fighting another form of commoditization. Hollywood protests its own images frequently.
In the 1950s and 60s, horror movies were defined by men always succeeding in protecting women. In modern horror, they are defined by men almost always failing and the woman surviving on her own. I'm not saying this means women are necessarily empowered by this shift, because what follows is usually 20 to 30 minutes of camera time devoted solely to the final girl being chased by her tormentor. What I am saying is that the message is murky, and it is murky precisely because straight men are not Neathanderthals completely unaware of or unsympathetic to criticism. The 1970s exploitation flick I Spit on Your Grave is a revenge picture about a woman enacting violent retribution on her rapists. But this is a movie primarily for men. What do men get out of this movie? According to some film critics, they get to not see themselves as the monsters women want revenge on. The fact that this movie features an extremely graphic and lengthy scene of sexual assault to set up of this dynamic complicates matters further.
The movie Showgirls is a true conundrum. It's a T&A movie that for 110 minutes forces the viewer to endure a stripper-ific vision of Las Vegas that is clearly aimed at a particular audience, then in the final 10 minutes tries to make up for it by preaching a message about how its important to find oneself. As it turns out, this movie is an enormous hit with the gay male community. It's not just because the movie is badly made, but because it is badly made in such a particular way.
RE: Is Sister Psyche too sexualized?
My take on this is that it's just one picture, and IMO one picture is not enough to de-rail a character. I also did not get "sex doll" from that image. I got "shocked/stunned with a little bit of sexiness thrown in." I don't think BAB looks ready to fight either and in fact even looks a little overwhelmed. In any case I don't really want to see either of these characters as strong. I want them to get out of the way so the real heroes (the players) can do what they failed to. It's too bad only one of them will die.
As for the picture of Sister P clinging to Manticore, I actually like this picture because it is only sensitive picture we have of any character in this game. It will make me feel a little more sympathic if she is the one who bites it.
While on the one hand there is an idealized male image as a rugged provider, there are other equally powerful images, such as man as immoral predator (any serial killer or gangster movie), man as incompetent loser (many comedies), and perhaps most prolifically man as too self absorbed and needing to get back in touch with his wife/kids/dreams/what really matters in life. To be recursive for a second, it could be argued that what we are doing in this thread is not combating commoditized images of men but reinforcing the commoditized version of men where men are fighting another form of commoditization. Hollywood protests its own images frequently.
|
Actually, there's a tangent in here. In a lot of male-centric movies, the male lead is the character men are expected to want to BE and women are expected to want to be WITH, but I honestly can't think of a recent movie with a female character that gave me the impression people were intended to sympathise with her and want to BE her. Granted, as a guy, that's likely hard for me to tell, but I know a thing or two about what makes a compelling female character and... I just haven't seen that. Not in movies, not in games, not recently anyway. I guess the last I can think of is Darksiders' Uriel mostly because she was strong and honourable even in defeat, even if she's chained to the plot by the that stupid old notion that "love makes men stronger and women weaker."
Seriously, I'm interested to know - can you think of a movie that's not a romantic comedy where at least some of the viewers are intended to admire and want to be like one of the female leads? Or, even easier, can you think of one where that's true for ANY of the female characters irrespective of their roles? I know I keep introducing tangents into my tangents, but this actually does interest me.
I guess my point is that when a movie is trying to present us a male ideal that we're intended to want to be like, it's usually the big strong MAN, and this seems to be an idea shoved down the throats of both men and women. When nerds or the "everyman" show up, they usually come off more as insulting, like the movie is telling us "This character sucks, just like you, so you should see eye to eye." At the best of times, they're vessels to show us that even pathetic ole' us can change into the ideal super man if we try hard enough.
My take on this is that it's just one picture, and IMO one picture is not enough to de-rail a character. I also did not get "sex doll" from that image. I got "shocked/stunned with a little bit of sexiness thrown in." I don't think BAB looks ready to fight either and in fact even looks a little overwhelmed. In any case I don't really want to see either of these characters as strong. I want them to get out of the way so the real heroes (the players) can do what they failed to. It's too bad only one of them will die.
|
That said, I don't really want to see all canon characters move out of the way to make way for my inflated ego... Much as I may have argued to the contrary in the past. Believe it or not, I WANT to see a cool BABs crack his robotic knuckles and go "Get off my planet!" and a cool Sister Psyche holding back a tide of Shivans with her mind under the stress of the alien horde. I generally speak against canon characters because I HATE them, and I hate them largely because they're never likable and rarely get much characterisation. For instance, I like Lt. Sefu Tendaji and even WM Deitrich and, hell, even the Psi-Scout Laconic. They have sufficient characterisation, and they're characterised as good people, so I care about them by the end.
Hell, I have more reason to like Marauder than I have reason to like BABs, because Marauder gets much more screen time and we get to know the muscle-brained meathead enough to have a feel for him as a character. Sure, he's a bad guy and a low-brow brute, but he's still a compelling character in his own right, and I know that if Shivans landed in the Magistrarium, Marauder wouldn't be dislocating his jaw, gaping with horror, he'd be cracking his neck and yelling at them like a 1990s professional wrestler. And I would LOVE to see that.
I don't want to see canon characters take a back seat in the story, even if I want to me ON their level, rather than always four levels behind. What I want to see for real is canon characters I have any reason to care about beyond their informed ability to be central to plots they don't appear in.
As for the picture of Sister P clinging to Manticore, I actually like this picture because it is only sensitive picture we have of any character in this game.
|
See, here's the thing - criticising the sexual objectification of an otherwise compelling character at the expense of her personality is not a call to "desexify" said character, because then you end up with a bunch of people who simply don't act like they're close. The solution is to present that sexiness within a context that makes sense for the character to exhibit it in.
Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.
|
Seriously, I'm interested to know - can you think of a movie that's not a romantic comedy where at least some of the viewers are intended to admire and want to be like one of the female leads? Or, even easier, can you think of one where that's true for ANY of the female characters irrespective of their roles?
|
Jane Smith in Mr. & Mrs. Smith. It's not going to win any Oscars for acting, but it's a fun action movie where Angelina Jolie is portrayed as both sexy and competent outside of her relationship with John Smith (Brad Pitt). It's shown from the start that she is at the very least his equal as an assassin, and in many cases she has significant advantages over him. To some degree, many of Angelina Jolie's Action Girl roles fit in this mold.
I'm sure if I sat down with my movie collection I could come up with many more, but these two popped immediately to mind.
My story arcs: #2370- Noah Reborn, #18672- The Clockwork War, #31490- Easy Money
Sartre once said, "Hell is other people." What does that make an MMO?
Seriously, I'm interested to know - can you think of a movie that's not a romantic comedy where at least some of the viewers are intended to admire and want to be like one of the female leads? Or, even easier, can you think of one where that's true for ANY of the female characters irrespective of their roles? I know I keep introducing tangents into my tangents, but this actually does interest me.
|
I see what you are getting at with this question but the literal answer is yes, I can think of movies with strong female leads. We've already talked about the Twilight series. But females are the default lead characters in the horror genre and in period pieces, for reasons that are, humoursly enough, exact opposites of each other. The lead in high school movies is often female, especially in the sort of genre that produces movies like Heathers, Saved! and Mean Girls. Fairy tale movies almost invariably feature female leads (the Disney princess line, with their interchangeable princes who all have the same face). Then there are the types of movies in the Steel Magnolias and Fried Green Tomatoes line up, thrillers like Diabolique, and even movies like The Stepford Wives which address this situation head on. By mentioning these things I'm not trying to detract from the idea that women don't have it rough, only point out the literal answer to the question.
The more nuanced answer to what I think you may be asking is that women rarely lead blockbuster movies. But this goes back to what I was saying about there being multiple channels of messages. Blockbuster movies are not something that is generally associated with good taste. They play a strange role in US society because at the same time they are mocked for their lowbrow content, they are held up as markets women and minorities need more representation in. To provide an outside example, there is a strong community of religious folks with some very un-nice things to say about my so-called "alternative lifestyle," but whether and how much actual influence they have over me is debatable. While in the US they've been more or less successful at keeping me from legally marrying my boyfriend they don't exert the kind of control over me that would make me completely powerless.
One of the objections earlier in this thread to the depictions of Sister P was that it was "obviously" drawn with men in mind. The other objection seems to be that she is being retooled into some kind of "stupid ****" (my words, paraphrasing). But images of scantily clad women are not consumed only by straight men. Who is it you find supporting "divas" like Madonna, Cher, Brittany Spears, Lady Gaga, and Christina Aguilera even during their most outcast moments? I think it's impossible to argue that these figures are not sexualized, but also hard to argue that their sexualization has an unambiguous fuel source. They are definitely not, in the circles in which they are idolized, characterized as "stupid sluts."
On to Twlight - I absolutely agree that the biggest problems of those books/films are not the way that the men are fetishized, but I feel like you can't ignore it either. Either fetishization is a bad thing or it isn't. At the time Miley Cyrus was posing for semi-revealing vogue ads the same people I heard decrying those were the same people who were rooting for Taylor Lautner to take of his shirt one more time. I'm not even suggesting that they should. But I do want to talk about why that is okay.
Like I said before, I don't think that objectification is inherently bad - both genders do it. Objectification tends to happen to women, however, without as many ameliorating character traits to make them more than just an object should we choose to view them as such. The problem, however, isn't just the objectification. The problem is that we've trained men and women to view women as objects of male desire and that's it. Ultimately that's what we need to change.
"Be a beacon?"
Blue Mourning: lvl. 50 Katana/DA
Bree the Barricade: lvl 50 Stone/Axe
Last Chance for Eden: lvl 50 Fire/Kin
Myra the Grey: lvl 50 Bots/Traps
1 Minute to Midnight lvl 50 Spines/DA