Retreading "feminism"

Haha... Oh dear... Please no one post pictures to counter this.

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

*Stops, backs away from the Insert Link button...*

You've never been to Regretsy. I specifically advise against looking up Camel Joe on Regresty.

Hey! Fanservice Girl will sue for copyright infringement.

Twilight Shadow
Pinkie Pie
Apple Jack (I think. I could be wrong. Apple something)
Rarity
Fluttershy
Rainbow Dash

Are you implying that one of the six is male?

I'm not sure what pattern you're seeing in other people's costumes, but after a long time of keeping an eye on the Best Costume Designs thread, I've seen a great breadth and depth of character appearances that really isn't nearly as limited as you appear to suggest. People make all kinds of weird things, from robots to aliens to plant people to living insects and beyond. The game promotes diversity, and diversity is what I, personally, have seen.

Will more esoteric costume creator additions earn the studio loads of new players? Probably not, but at this point I doubt there's anything that will. However, what more esoteric costume creator additions will earn the studio is more new characters per player, and each new character a player likes is one more anchor to keep said player playing THIS game. After all, I play the game without a shadow of regret even without these many pieces I'm asking for. Had I the pieces, however, I would use them to make new characters or upgrade old ones and thus gain new respect for both the game and the studio, and the more I respect the game, the more money I want to pour into it.

At the end of the day, how many new players an addition will bring and how much it will cost aren't issues we have any real outlook over as players, not unless Arcana wants to pitch in on this particular side of the conversation. That's even more true when you consider that over-saturating a particular character theme with too many options tends to start having diminishing returns on player satisfaction. Honestly, if we got another tech texture to add to the dozen tech textures we already have, how many players will that gain us? How much point is there to doing this anyway?

The broader question here isn't player numbers, not in terms of what we can discuss, but rather the merit of creating new themes vs. supplementing old themes. As in all things, the answer is somewhere in-between the extremes, but I can say this with a great degree of certainty - if you give players greater freedom, players WILL exploit it. Maybe not immediately, but they will.

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.

A lot. I remember mom and dad's faces, my friend's faces and so on. Often unnervingly so as people sometimes think I "stare" at them, made worse by my innate communication issues. For other girls, I tend to make a "full-body view" and move on. Not especially the catty type, so the "clothes gossip" doesn't really fly with me.





Well, you can certainly back on women being the "Mother Earth" stereotype and not being in a death cult, or the Skulls excluding women as I imagine many gangs do. So that's fair. A lot of the other pieces should be ported over though, including tattoos, cigars, and way smaller chest sizes.

Sister Psyche is especially irksome because lately she's been "brain dead" in poses. Now, a Mind Control/Forcefied Controller that can self-admittedly "hear" all the voices about her, be a viable member of the Phalanx in her own right could do with a bit more of an assertive personality, but again she and Numina are the "super housewife" model, which makes contacts like Indigo, Shadow Spider and so on great since they just get down to business and cut the cheesecake, for the most part.

Eh Hem!

That's Twilight SPARKLE

Just to clarify.

That's a tangent I forgot to pick up on

A few years ago, I met a curious Dutch woman when I was in the UK. One interesting thing she pointed out to me about the way I speak with people is that I don't actually look at people when I speak and rarely do when I listen. At first she wondered if there was something distracting me in the scenery around, before telling me about this a curiosity.

In short, I don't look at people's faces much. I look at their faces enough to know who they are, and I do have a very strong memory for faces, as well as a fairly strong sense of facial expressions, but people's faces aren't really all that interesting unless they animate, and most people's faces never animate either when they speak or when they listen. Sure, people like the Spoony One and The Cinema snob have very expressive faces even when they're not acting for the camera, but they're the exception, rather than the rule. For most other people, it's enough to track for motion and look at their faces when something changes.

Besides, trying to talk AND look is taxing on my brain That's why typing is so easy.

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.

Nope, just that I can't count.

I thought you were joking but then I Googled it. That name...can't be a coincidence.

I'm not sure what this has to do with the subject, though. Granted, we've had some weird tangents that didn't have too much to do with it anyway, but your point seems to be "there can be no thread because there's nothing that can be discussed." I disagree. City of Heroes isn't the first game or medium to offer its players anonymity or the ability to express themselves in any shape they want. Second Life is still better in this particular regard. But criticising City of Heroes was never my intent, and improving the costume creator is only a tangential benefit of discussing these issues. It's a big god damn benefit, mind you, I'm not denying that, but it's still tangential to the point.

More, my point was "What actually IS the problem?" And there IS a problem, of that there is no doubt. Something, somewhere, somehow is causing a division and is causing these issues to recur. As a point of fact, we saw them very recently. Something's going on, and I'm interested in discussing what that might be. As I said before - I'm really not looking for a solution so much as I'm looking to understand the problem. WHY do some people feel the game's portrayal of specific concepts is bad? WHY do some consider that the attitudes towards certain concepts are unfair? Are they? Maybe they are, maybe they aren't, but I'm more interested in knowing why we feel as we do than I am in knowing whether we're right to feel this way. I'm not looking for objective truths, I'm looking for subjective impressions.

You say you can't think of a better environment in terms of a solution to the situations posited. What situation is that? What solution are we looking to apply? How do you even define this environment? Speaking in general terms is easy, and it is therefore just not very informative. And I'm not saying these things to pick a quarrel. I'm saying these things because I can bet you real money that "the situation poised" appears to be different to each person observing and participating. The reason I don't want to start an argument here is because none of us really know what we're arguing ABOUT. What is the situation? Is it sexism? Is it feminism? Is it objectification? Is it corporate greed? Is it misguided creativity? Is it benefactor leniency? Is it pure bad taste? Is it stupid people? What, really, is "it?"

If I knew the right question to ask, I wouldn't need to ask it, because its answer would be obvious. That's why I end up making a complete dunce of myself by asking questions without really knowing what it is I'm trying to discover. That's why I feel a discussion is more beneficial than trying to divine solutions to problems we don't even fully understand.

Yes, City of Heroes is an inclusive environment. To a point. In terms of the actual game and more specifically the costume designer, the great diversity is greatly inclusive, but that doesn't mean there isn't a world more to ask for. In terms of community, most people are greatly accepting of most differing lifestyles and preferences, but I've seen prejudice and stamping out of ideas to know this isn't an isolated event. To avoid controversial examples, let's look at something simple - American comic books vs. broad-range Fantasy. Almost every time Fantasy elements are added to the game, invariably people will show up to make arguments as to how they shouldn't be added, expressly because they don't belong in the game's thematic. If our community were truly so open and accepting as to not so much as merit a discussion, these instances wouldn't happen, and yet they continue to occur on practically every opportunity. Dual Blades, the new Circle of Thorns, Walk, Titanic Weapons and on and on. It happens, and if it happens, there must be a reason for it.

Our game might be a shining example of an open-minded environment, but this doesn't make it perfect. Certain aspects of it are imperfect because time hasn't permitted for them to be perfected yet. Certain aspects of it are imperfect - or more specifically omitted - because they are seen by some to "not belong." Our community, too, is a shining example of cool, level-headed, open-minded people, and I'm proud to be part of it. But our community, too, is not perfect, sometimes by misunderstanding, other times by disagreement. There are still things to be said on both the subject of game and community, and they're not limited to JUST feminism, though that's a big part of it.

I originally linked to MovieBob's Big Picture not so much because I found someone who supported feminism (I think he did, but I'm not sure), but rather because he had found a unique way to phrase the problem and put it into a context that I never even suspected existed. That revelation inspired me to look for other similar ones in other similar topics, hence why we are here. Can we, actually, put other notoriously amorphous problems in such concrete terms that can be discussed objectively? Because it's this discussion that I feel is and has been truly enlightening, whether or not it actually conjures up a solution. So long as I leave with a better understanding and a better idea of how to put the problem into words, I consider that a success.

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.

I've also read accounts of individuals who don't fall into the gender binary using this and other similar virtual spaces to explore the ways they want to express themselves in real life.

I believe the right question is "to what degree should we balance unrealistic fantasy with realistic diversity."

Having asked the question, I don't have an obvious answer in mind.

The answers that spring (unbidden) to my mind, are:

Censorship is bad

Vote with your wallet

The answer is...none.

Unrealistic Fantasy is what comics are about...laser beams from your eyes, adamantium skeletons, lifting a school bus over your head and throwing it a mile into the air.

These are things you see in superhero comics. They're unrealistic. And the sad fact is, the one thing people keep forgetting when it comes to realism, superhero comics, and the male/female form...

"They're in frigging shape! These people work out!"

And do they tend to have some version of the ideal form? Yes. Is it an impossible form. No. It's called genetic lottery...figuring they just won the superpowered lottery...well there you go!

And for those wanting REALISM...I have to ask...how does someone fighting crime and basically working out all day long (running around everywhere...fighting evil/good...ect) come out to be "Hey look at me, I have a weight problem."

Because there is only one universal standard for fitness and beauty.

To the degree that most adequately conveys a sense of authenticity, thereby maximizing the immersive experience, which is the fundamental attraction of the medium.

I think the better question is "how much diversity should there be in our unrealistic fantasies?" Because the fantasy thing is a staple of the genre. But if you said "design your ideal superhero" you'd get as many responses as you have respondents, and both the costume options and promo art need to reflect that.

I'm not sure in what way that answers the question. Or addresses it in any way. Prefixing the words "In a completely uncensored game..." doesn't materially alter the question: it just turns it from a direct question to a hypothetical one, but its still the same question.

A paraphrase of the question would be "to what degree do we balance the desire to promote a single or set of artistic aesthetics, which necessarily focus content in only a certain set of areas, with the desire to represent as many players' own preferences as possible."


To restate the question in a less controversial context, we call this game "City of Heroes." Why? Why not just call it "City of People." Why limit people to only heroes, or heroes and villains, or even super powered people. Isn't the best of all possibilities one where people can log in and be literally anything they want to do?

And honestly, I don't think the answer is necessarily yes: not in a game.

Returning to the original context, there is fairly broad agreement that more choices in general tends to be better, and the choices that exist reflect some gender biases that are not universally acceptable. But having said all of that, is the issue one of details, where the solution is simply to identify areas where the game is missing options and add them to some degree, or is the problem more fundamental, that the game promotes a specific artistic style and *any* specific artistic style will conflict with with a lot of players preferences.

In other words, if we were not talking about the game being "too sexist" would we just be talking about it being too cartoony, or too hyper-realistic, or too noir, or too bland, or whatever. Is the basis for the issue that skewed sexual depiction is a special problem demanding special solutions, or is it that skewed anything is a problem and the game needs to be more generic in general?

How we balance the right and the desire to allow artists creative latitude to express a particular vision with the desire for that overall vision to be as inclusive as it can be when players pick up that vision and run with it is, I think, under all the other details, the fundamental question. And I don't think it has a good answer, because I don't think most people have spent any time thinking about all the ramifications of the question itself. Its an easy question to dismiss as trivial. But I don't think dismissing it actually makes it go away. It just sits there, foiling any attempt to make significant progress on the related topics beyond a certain point.

To amplify the point: whether this question can be trivially answered by any one person, the fundamental problem is that everyone with a trivially easy answer probably has a different trivially easy answer than everyone else. How you can build consensus around all those different answers when everyone thinks the answer is trivially obvious, and different, is the crux of the problem the question highlights.

I don't think that represents a better question, because it doesn't encapsulate the fundamental conflict. Diversity *of* fantasy doesn't have a downside, and it doesn't have a mutually exclusive counterpart such that you can't have both.

The tension I'm trying to highlight is between two things that conflict with each other to the extent that you cannot maximize both: focused fantasy, and realism outside the realm of fantasy. That tension doesn't exist in your question, at least as I am parsing it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the way I parse your question is, to simplify a bit "how many different kinds of fantasies should we depict" and its too easy to say "as many as possible." While there may be a downside to doing that, there isn't one that the question itself presents as a choice.