Retreading "feminism"

And?


I'm now going to have extreme difficulty not hearing Desdemona's voice in my head being autotuned.

Or maybe you don't actually get what sexualization is.

Women are clearly more sexualized in this game than men are. One need only look at the costume options to see that.

Attractive != sexualized. Physically idealized != sexualized.

What is nice, though, is that female characters are not locked into it as they are in some other games. And it's possible to bring that aspect into a male character as well, which is rare. I appreciate that.

But if you think that men and women are equally sexualized in this game, well... I'm afraid there's something you're not getting.

Frankly, I'm baffled it's even being debated.

I'm going to hear her with Dr. Girlfriend's voice from now on.

Glad you brought this up.

I want developers to work on all sorts of things, even if I'm not personally interested in them. Because that expands the playerbase, which in turn makes the game more successful, which is good for me and everyone else playing it.

That aside, I don't think expanding character design options is ever a bad thing, because it contributes to character uniqueness, and I think just about everyone appreciates that. Even if you don't use a particular option, someone else will, which further distinguishes them from you.

From a resources/feasibility standpoint, I agree.
However, asking me if I'd like them working on those things (or things I'm not interested in, but others may be)... I think that these types of options add to all users' experiences, because the options they don't use, they get to see from/on others.
I'm not entirely normal though (so I'm really not against your point), but I would like them to work on such things, even though I don't think I'd actually make fat characters nor huge females (I might, but I certainly don't have any in mind at present time, yet I still get excited at the idea of them adding such things).

The Electric-Knight ______ Malfaz _____ Zox'Oculox

@Zethustra

"Now at midnight all the agents and the superhuman crew come out
and round up everyone that knows more than they do"-Dylan

www.pauldamonthomas.com - Original Music

That's not sexualization. Again, attractiveness does not equate to sexualization. There's nothing that is explicitly sexually provocative about a man looking manly. If there were, this game would have to be rated M for Mature.

Sexualization is what happens to a female character's chest when the Witch Top is donned. Is there any costume option that makes a man's crotch bulge or makes it look like he's got a banana in his pantleg? No.

Female characters in the canon who are sexualized: Desdemona, Dominatrix, Sister Psyche, Silver Mantis, Bob Cat, Mother Mayhem, Vanessa DeVore.

Male characters in the canon who are sexualized: ...can't think of one.

Ghost Widow hasn't been sexualized. Honestly, I think that's contributed to her popularity. Note, many people still find her sexy. Sexy and sexualized aren't the same thing.

I recently saw Appleseed: Ex Machina. Deunan Knute is a good example of a sexy and strong female character who hasn't been sexualized.

Implying that there is something explicitly sexually provocative about a woman looking womanly.

I don't disagree with any one part of your statement. However, there are plenty of absolutely terrible portrayals of women that *are* popular among women. There were a series of films called "The Sheik" films where, I think it was Rudolph Valantino, plays a Arabian (disregarding all race issues here) kidnaps and essentially holds a British woman captive until she falls in love with him. There is no way that that isn't a hurtful portrayal of women (and men for that matter), yet the film wasn't popular among men. It was among women. "Chick Flicks", ie, romantic comedies, continue to portray most women in an absolutely awful way, yet those are also highly popular among women.

There is a culture of defiance that has grown over the last hundred years or so, but, at least to some extent, women have brought in, and have for the purposes of our culture, always brought into the process. If these films didn't sell because women as a whole group, found them offensive, I promise you they'd stop making those films because they'd stop making money.

But that's part of the problem. There is no whole group of women that is ever going to agree on anything. Even during first wave feminism, when women were fighting for the right to vote, there were women fighting against it for varied reasons. We can't think of "women" and "men" as whole collectives that come together and decide how their gender will be represented.

And this is why sexism is bad for both women and men. The same culture that thinks female super heroes can (and should and want to) fight crime in stilettos is the same culture that says men should like football, beer, and boobs. There are many different ways to be feminine and masculine, a good number of which overlap. But when we hold up just one of each as *this* is feminine, and *this* is masculine, we limit ourselves and stunt our emotional growth and maturity.

As for why the Valentino films were popular among women, I have no idea. I have not seen them so I have no frame of reference. My best guess is that women looked past what was happening on the screen and just saw a very attractive man in a seemingly romantic situation and were wishing they could be that woman. It's the same reason some women are all about Johnny Depp as Jack Sparrow, despite the fact that he's a criminal with appalling oral hygiene.

But it's also why some guys like Megan Fox despite the fact that she can't act and has soulless eyes. We have set up in our society that there is only one way to be attractive, and both Mr. Depp and Ms. Fox fit that bill (for many people at least). When you're bombarded from an early age with imagines of what you're supposed to find attractive, you start believing it.

Ever have a friend who was attracted to larger women? And was embarrassed by it? Same principle.

And I'll stop here before I tangent again. >.>

? IMO, that's one ugly belt.

Interesting observation... When I was in high-school, myself, I somehow ended up making friends primarily with girls, since I was (and am) a wimpy guy who prefers the philosophical side of things and doesn't enjoy getting drunk off his ***, so most of the guys I simply hated and wanted nothing to do with. Ugh! You think your jocks are bad? Try the hooligan youths of the Balkans! Ugh, tangent...

Anyway, because I spent most of my time around the girls in my class, I did see a lot of what you're describing going on, though mostly as a bystander. It often surprised me how vicious and biting high-school girls could be just among each other something as simple as "those shoes don't go with those pants." You watch dreck like Totally Spies and think that can't happen... But it can. I never really thought about it this way, but "other women" do indeed seem to be women's harshest critics by far.

Speaking as a guy and from knowing other guys, "guys aren't that fussy." In fact, I'd go as far as to say that guys tend to be very generous, ignoring aspects of woman they find attractive, but focusing on the aspects that they do. Perhaps this is an expression of being shallower and possibly a disrespect for women in general by seeing them as a collection of "parts" rather than as a whole person, but in some ways it leads to a much more easygoing attitude. So what if those shoes don't go with those pants? The shirt is still very nice, so that's good, right?

I guess there's an argument here between judging people based on aspects of their whole, or trying to look past superficial aspects and judge people as a whole person, and where objectification comes from the former. Consider a costume-obsessed City of Heroes player (i.e. me), and what said player thinks when seeing a cool costume: "I want to use those shoulders!" "I want that hat!" "I didn't think those boots could look like this!" It's very rare, I think, that we'll look at an NPC with a costume we like and think "Wow, this is a good overall design, even though I don't like any of the pieces." We see a costume we like because it has pieces we want, or because it has an idea we like. When we see a costume we like, we don't see the NPC as a better person for having it, we see the NPC as a foam mannequin that the costume is stretched over.

I don't think City of Heroes can ever escape this kind of objectification. The costume editor teaches up to treat people as collections of parts, so when we see a costume we like or one we dislike, our heads break it down into its component parts and tells us which parts we think were used well and which parts weren't. Take, for instance, the Resistance-looking Magiacl Armour dudes from the Carnival of War - they look AMAZING for almost their entire body, EXCEPT those god damn Banded boots. They stand out, they look bad and they have no place to be on an otherwise great costume, but they are.

I should probably save the rest of that line of thought for a later quote

Interesting you should mention this. I sometimes say I'm "weird" specifically because my brain works in completely the opposite direction. Supposing I see a specific face as the "norm," I don't actually find faces that look like it attractive. I find them boring. Speaking purely in the realm of character designs, anything which looks like the "norm" turns me off, because it's been done, because I've seen many times before and because it's no longer interesting. Things that deviate from the norm look - to me at least - much more interesting.

Now, of course, I still find some things more attractive than others, but the ones I enjoy the most are the things that deviate from that norm the most while still remaining attractive. Speaking of female faces specifically, I like a pretty face as much as the next guy and dislike a disfigured face just instinctively. And yet, some of the coolest faces I've seen were the ones with the huge scars and giant stitches when I or others have been able to make them work. Pushing the boundaries of norms while still remaining tasteful is where I find the greatest aesthetic fulfilment. Restricting ourselves to said norms is just... Boring. Boring, because we can do so much more.

I honestly don't think it matters. Personally, I've never been against eyecandy or fanservice or any other kind of characteristic done primarily to look pretty. That's what half of my characters are, as a point of fact. So long as this is done tastefully, skillfully and constitutes only ONE part of an otherwise compelling characters, then there's really no shame in it. My single oldest female character, for example, is a cyborg who lost her own body and had to have her brain transplanted in an artificial one to save her life. As such, she has ended up with a "smokin' hot" body specifically built to be like this, which would normally be considered extreme fanservice. However, the tragedy of said character is that she has never accepted this body as her own and is, in fact, never comfortable in her own skin, so she'll abuse her own indestructible body with little regard for modesty, but it is her mind that she will guard ruthlessly, never letting anyone get close to her on an emotional level.

I like to think I've done a good job on the above because while she IS eyecandy to a large extent, I think I've done enough to "legitimise" her character as an actual person to "earn" the right to some fanservice I'm not sure if that's how these things actually work, but that's how I've always seen them: There's nothing wrong with objectifying characters physically, so long as you don't do this at the expense writing them as hollow author pleasure vessels devoid or any personality. A compelling character who also happens to be unnecessarily sexy is still a compelling character. A hollow character who was made specifically to be unnecessarily sexy, on the other hand, is a cheesecake, or alternately a beefcake.

Typically, men's depiction of male characters is rather limited as the way men view other men is rather limited in general. Arcana already covered much of that. When you see big burly men cutting the legs off spiders with swords the size of aircraft carriers - what Yahtzee refers to as "a 14-year-old's view of masculinity" - that's how a lot of guys like to be seen by other guys. I'm not saying that's always a guy writing the character in much the same way as I don't want to say it's a guy making the cheesecakes, but that's how a lot of guys like to think of themselves. In a culture which seems to promote beer-drinking, weight-lifting and contact sports as the height of masculinity, that's the sort of mental image men get of what they're expected to be, and that's the sort of mental image that bleeds into works they create.

Male characters written by women, though sometimes just the same, are often much more diverse and much more often centre on more spiritual qualities. There are a thousand tropes just for that, sure, but the mere fact that we always assume the "tank" has to be a big dude and the healer and tiny girl is reason enough to pause and think about it. Not all men ARE big and strong. Not all men SHOULD be. Not all men, furthermore, should even WANT to be big and strong, and the ones who don't shouldn't be mocked and ridiculed. But because there exists this kind of peer pressure pushing men into that specific stereotype, that's what we see the most.

However, I don't think male characters in City of Heroes are nearly as sexualised as people think, at least judging by what people tend to make. Oh, sure, the muscular beefcake exists, but most male characters I've teamed with are robots, hooded, dragons, in power armour or still something OTHER than beefy man in skin-tight spandex. You see a few of those, sure, but by and large, people just seem to feel comfortable making them in many different shapes and forms. Compare that to female characters, whom you almost never see masked. Hell, I had to fight my own irrational instincts before I could make a fully-masked female character before I could break out of that rut.

What I'm trying to say is that men are often seen as most appealing when they look like weightlifters, but this is usually restricted to how they are perceived by other men. When female writers get involved, the range of male characters becomes much broader. I don't want to say any less objectified as that's more down to the specific writer's skill and inclination, but it's clear to me that women like more types of men than men do

Speaking strictly of the realm of costume creation, I would very much like to see new costume pieces I never thought I'd want developed. To me, expanding my own horizons is probably the number one reason why I love this game. Before City of Heroes gave me this amazing tool to create characters with, I never even thought I wanted to make female characters. It felt weird to play them. These days, they're probably my most numerous ones.

Only ever sticking to the themes I know I enjoy is the death knell of creativity. Pushing my own boundaries, experimenting with things I'm not familiar with and even working with things I expressly DISLIKE is where I find the game's greatest excitement. With every new character I make that I never thought I wanted to make, I feel like I've grown richer in experience, and that's something money can't really buy.

Oh, sure, there are specific things I want just because the game doesn't have them, but when it comes to costume pieces, there isn't any one single thing that I specifically DON'T want. Even things I don't like when I first see them are things I'll want to toy around with in time, just to see if I can't make a character type I don't like in a way I'll still enjoy. The only time I'll argue against adding one costume piece in favour of another is if we're looking to add to a category that already has more than enough options, whereas adding to another that has few or no options would be much better. It's always better to expand the costume creator outwardly and enable more and weirder costumes, because it enables those of us who want it to push our own boundaries and increase the breadth of characters we create.

I have no interest in making a gunslinger, for instance. I don't like Westerns in the slightest and I don't like the thematic. I'm still excited for the Gunslinger set because I wonder if I can't make a gunslinger with a weird story and a unique look that I'm going to like anyway. And I'm pretty sure I can, if I put my mind to it.

Long story short - yes, I want them to spend time making costumes I didn't ask for, provided they're not adding to an already saturated category (like tech armour).

As I said before, I think the problem is less sexualisation and more objectification. You can make a character whose sole reason to exist is because he or she looks attractive. That doesn't have to be sexually attractive, any kind of aesthetic attraction would count here - good use of colours, unorthodox use of costume pieces, a seemingly impossible overall look and so forth. So long as that character exists purely for his or her looks and not for his or her personality, that's a character who's been objectified, sexually or otherwise. In this regard, men suffer as much as women.

However, I still don't think this is a bad thing. Like I said before - if said character has been written well enough to be compelling, then being objectified can be forgiven, and indeed enjoyed for what it is. The problem isn't objectification. It's poor writing confusing a pleasing appearance with a compelling character.

Ghost Widow is popular because she's the perfect storm of many conditions. She has been written as both a strong character and a tragic one, which gives players both sympathy and respect for her. She is also the most pleasant of the villainous lieutenants, neither being too disgusting in her villainy nor to irritatingly melodramatic in her tragedy. She is also written to be mysterious on a superficial level and interesting on a deeper level, as well. Even without a hot body, Ghost Widow is still "sexy" because she is written the part. That she also has very clear, striking, memorable visuals, a pretty face and a nice body is just the icing on the cake.

Like all the Seers and Widows, Ghost Widow is still objectified because she's a ridiculously hot woman in skintight vinyl, but her writing "earns" her the right to that, and she pulls it off because she's a compelling character who also happens to be sexy. That's the right way to do it, I think.

Precisely. I don't mind objectification or sexualisation - everyone is, or at least should be, free to pursue his or her preferences, even if I don't like the result. It's their characters, it's their choice. Where I mind this kind of objectification is when it EXCLUDES options and in so doing limits my freedom of expression, forcing me to use a much narrower frame of concepts than I'd like.

When objectification of characters exists as an option, this doesn't bother me. When it exists as the ONLY option, however, I have a problem with it. And right now, in City of Heroes, this exists for women a lot more so than for men for the simple fact that men have a lot more body shapes to choose from than women do. This brings me back to my previous point - men are allowed to be anything, from thin to chunky, from small to impossibly huge, from butt ugly to a fangirl's dream. Women, by contrast, are more or less limited to a fanboy's dream and not a lot else.

To the editor's credit, tools DO exist to deviate, but you have to know where to look, you have to know what to do with them and you have to pretty much hammer a square peg in a round hole to achieve this deviation, and even then you don't deviate by this much. I have at least two masculine women, at last two hideous monstrous women, at least two women with concealed faces and... Well, and so on. However, in doing this, I have pretty much run out of costume pieces, so any other unusual women I want to make have to either repeat much of the same pieces and slider options, or otherwise wait on future developments of the sort that I've been hounding David since he showed up on the forums

Objectification doesn't bother me when it exists in fiction. It bothers me when it's forced down onto my own characters, pretty much.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville 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.

You can be both sexy and strong, yes, but the male model isn't baseline very physically fit with the purpose of appearing sexy.

Heh.

Cliff notes?

I have a hard time agreeing with this statement when you look at her costume chest piece. The first thing a couple people I know who don't play the game have commented upon seeing her in game or loading graphics are her breasts. That costume isolated and exaggerates the existence of her breasts. It's all there in black and white. And personally, I've always thought that she was a bit of a cheesey character for it.

Next to Sister Psyche, I'd argue she's one of the most sexualized female canon characters in game (pre-Desdemona of course).

I like this summary. It matches where my mind is at when I make a new character. Each of my characters is quite different from the last and each is usually my own riff on some of the many tried and true tropes of comic book fiction.

Yet where you assert that overplaying is bad, I think it's like picking fruit. The longer you can let it ripen on the plant, the more intense the flavor. But you also risk going too far and your harvest going off. But it's worth the risk IMO.

So back to what I understand as Sam's original overall topic and question that has resurfaced several times in the past year: why are there so few options to then overplay the muscle bound Red Sonja type of female in game?

Yes and no. It wouldn't be hard to argue that GW is sexualized. It would be hard to argue that it's because of the chest piece. Women's fashion tends to accentuate the bust as it is, which isn't, by itself, a bad thing. You accentuate what you've got and what you want people to take notice of. The argument falls apart, however, since the most noticeable thing about her costume isn't her chest piece. Have you seen those big honking shoulder pieces? Way more noticable. In game it isn't even the most noticeable thing she's flaunting because she's the only rig that has flowing/moving hair so that becomes really really noticeable.

However, all that being said, GW is a good example of a woman's who's sexualization is used as a tool to build character instead of it being the end point of character (Starfire from DC I'm looking at you!). GW most interesting assets aren't her boobs, or her face, or her one of a kind hair. It's the fact that they built an interesting mythology and character around those things. Her relationship with Wretch is one of the most interesting in the game. When you compare her backstory to, say, Black Scorpion's, you can see how much richer her's is, and how much better fleshed and rounded out she is as a character.

Poor Sister Psyche