Gender Equality?! I LIKE CHEESECAKE!

So you're saying it's ok to pick what female models wear, but NOT certain options like baron jackets, chaps and gunslinger jackets?

Colour me confused...

Originally Posted by Zwillinger GG, I would tell you that "I am killing you with my mind", but I couldn't find an emoticon to properly express my sentiment.

Originally Posted by Captain_Photon NOTE: The Incarnate System is basically farming for IOs on a larger scale, and with more obtrusive lore.

No. I have no idea where you got that from so color us both confused.

I've said before that I have no issue with giving female models various parts (jackets, etc) but that I'd hate to see it deter the artists from the exceptional work they've done on some of the uniquely feminine bits.

What I object to is people acting as though those bits are somehow forcing themselves onto their models or something. If you think Part A looks like prosititute-wear, throw a shirt or pants on under it.

Edit: Really? The casual "h-word" for prostitute is censored?

Joyrock is pretty sure I've done that....then again I firedance, so he's seen me throw actual fire.

So, when he said that women dressing in certain ways pleases him, and that women should to that more, he wasn't informing women how to dress to please him?

Sorry, but my explanation seems much simpler to me.

For the record, I don't believe he was being malicious - just unconsciously sexist. I don't think he's a bad person, or trying to act like one. On the contrary, if I thought he meant to be sexist, I wouldn't bother.
I think MOO's a good guy. And when good guys - or good gals - say something that makes them look bad, they should be called out on it.
That's the way things change.

Of course he wasn't. The only thing he can do is dress his own toons how he wants to. The fact that he likes to see women dressed a certain way is not degrading, nor is it "telling" anyone they have to do anything just to please him. It's an expression of personal desire. The only way it translates into a game discussion at all is that if the pieces he likes stop being made, he personally cannot continue dressing his characters in new outfits he personally likes.

I personally like to see hot shirtless guys. If hot guys could just never wear shirts I would be fine with that. But the fact that I would like this does not mean that I am "telling" all guys they need to be shirtless all the time.


For the record, I think trying to link any poster's opinions on their own character's wardrobe to sexism, conscious or unconscious, is claiming moral high ground that doesn't exist.

My concern is for how the creators may envision some of these outfits. Choose the female "Gunslinger" set and you find a woman wearing bikini bottoms under the bustle and train (or buttcape, if you prefer). Why no skirt? Long Pleated looks fine, albeit with some clipping of the train. Mini Pleated is still an improvement over just the bikini, and still shows all the "Gunslinger" parts.

Don't get me started on the face they chose to represent that set. <.<

I still wish they would have made one of those ruffly/layered dress bottoms for the skirt section to go with the outfit. It makes the female side of the set seem half-***** to me, regardless of any problems with it not really being a 'gunslinger' set.

Off the cuff, my guess would be because they want to restrict showing the set parts to purely the set parts as much as possible. A long "gunslinger" skirt would have been nice but, in its absence, they'd rather remove the visual bottom entirely than add in parts from other sets while showcasing this one.

Obviously this doesn't preclude you from adding in your own skirt, leggings, etc.

Here's the quote:

Not 'it would be good if...'
Not 'I'd like to see more...'

He's saying what women need.
Need.
If they're going to keep him happy, that is.

And the two paragraphs, by the way, were discussing the real world, not the game world.

And if you can't tell the difference between saying 'I'd like it if men wore shirts less around me' and 'Men need to wear shirts less around me', I'm not sure how to explain it to you.

As shown above, the quote I'm unhappy with wasn't about his own character - it was about what women should have in their closets. I haven't objected to posts saying "I want to dress my character like <insert description> - it makes me happy." And I'm not objecting to that here, either.

For the record, if you don't think someone's forum post can be sexist, you might want to think about it for a bit. I could compose a sexist forum post. Could you?

If so, please don't tell me forum posts can't be sexist.

Unless, of course, you're telling me that pointing out what appears to me to be sexism isn't a good thing, that there is no moral high ground when it comes to sexism. (I suspect that's not what you're saying.)

Alternately, you might be admonishing me that this isn't important enough to warrant my attention. I'm capable of making that decision for myself, thanks.

You might even be telling me it's not important enough to warrant your attention. If so, that's fine, thread exits to the right.

Informing? Sure. If (<---important word - don't skip it) a woman has a desire to please him, then yes, he has informed them how to do so.

But that is a long stretch from him making demands or even requests that they do so.

The bikini bottom didn't come with the set. They didn't create a new bottom but had to use something, and a previously-existing skirt would have made the full set look better (in my opinion).

That's not what he said and it's not what you quoted. What he said was "[women] need more clothes to accentuate that attractiveness." Unless you're looking to be offended, to me this says that women, i.e. the female model in the game, need to have more clothes like this. Moo is referring to costume item selection and creation.

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.

What I object to is I didn't get the stuff I wanted, and if this trend continues, I may never get it. What I want is not the classic view of feminine beauty or even the post-modern view of borderline nudity and sexappeal. What I want is something that isn't opposed to that, just very sideways of it. What concerns me isn't that the art team are making sexy clothes. Let 'em. The more the better.

What concerns me is that the art team seem to be making sexy clothes to the exception of everything else, and doing so continuously. What concerns me is that it feels like the people in charge see no place in their game for female characters NOT selling themselves on sex and thus not seeing a place of the characters I want to make.

I don't mind corsets and thigh-high boots on their own. It's when we see that as the sole addition for female characters set after set after set that I begin to worry. If it were a mix of everything, then I'd be fine with it. I could easily accept that I didn't get what I wanted in this set, but maybe I'll get it in the next one. As it is, I start to think that I'll NEVER get what I want because someone will simply always find a way to twist the theme to show more cleavage and more leg.

At no point has the backlash against the Gunslinger set been against what we got. It has always been against what we DIDN'T get, with what we did get being held up as not nearly enough and not exactly in theme.

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.

Here's the paragraph.

Please highlight the 'if' you see here.
Thanks.

Here are both the paragraph I am quoting, and the preceeding paragraph:

Please highlight the sections discussing the costume creator.
Unfortunately, I see references to a (presumably real) closet, a (presumably real) spouse, and (presumably real) clothing.

There are other paragraphs in which MOO is discussing the costume creator. You'll notice I'm neither quoting, nor objecting to, those paragraphs.

No, Bikini 1 didn't come with the set. It is, however, the default bottom option (top of the list) and the least visible when you don't want to step on the new set pieces.

Please highlight a single word there which is proscriptive.

Damn, if that one doesn't deserve a rimshot, I don't know what does.

...

Um, you people are sick.

You missed one vitally important contextual part of the OPs original post that makes the whole part you are arguing about a reference to the costume creator.

That right there preceded the "However" in the section that you found offense with.

Whenever there is a "However", that means that there was something that preceded it. Whatever comes after the "However" pertains to what came before the "However".

Its basic English.

Other full sets use non-default pieces, including cases where the default would have been to wear something visible under a bustier or corset, but they chose to show the maximum amount of skin. Maybe with Gunslinger they were just being lazy, but I have to wonder.

Here, I'll show you:

"Gender Equality" is a reference to the thread the Techbot started shortly after the Steampunk set was released, and a thread David Nakayama himself followed up on in his Costume Workshop. Many of the prevailing opinions in both of those threads were that women had enough sexy clothing to last them a while and needed more other stuff. Moo simply does not feel this is the case, but as is his way, he started a separate thread about it.

In fact, there's an even better clue, and it's found right here:

This is a discussion about City of Heroes on the City of Heroes forums. You choose to take offence at Moo's desire for more sexy clothes for his female characters - specifically the notion that female characters should have MORE costume items than male characters - that's your call to make. But please don't insult the man's intelligence just because you think you know what he actually meant when that's nothing of the sort like what he said.

It's neither your place nor your right to judge people or chastise them over minor remarks and ambiguous phrasing when it's clear to everyone else on the forums understood what he meant. It's the biggest thing that's been talked about for probably two weeks now. You know what he meant. Stop trying to twist the man's words.

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.

To be fair, it's possible that the phrase "In my mind" was meant to apply to the entire remainder of the paragraph, not just to the sentence it was used in. Most posters probably aren't going to put in multiple, potentially redundant disclaimers just to prevent a few people from misinterpreting the post.

That said, the way David has said they'll try to design costumes from now on satisfies me. It sounds like we'll be getting more unisex parts as well as some pretty, feminine pieces. And they know now not to create matched sets which heavily imply different gender roles for different character models, which was my big complaint with the Gunslinger pack.

I was quite suprised that he brought up RL issues in the thread as well. That doesn't mean it didn't happen.

His statements weren't ambiguous - they were quite straight forward. They only become cryptic if we assume they aren't sexist.

He make a remark about his wife, their closet, and who pays for what, and who should wear what. You appear to be saying that in talking about his wife, he didn't mean his wife. In talking about his closet, he didn't mean his closet. And that in talking about women, he didn't mean women.
I'm not the one trying to make words jump through hoops here.

He said he supported more options, in specific sexy ones, for his female game avatars. I support this fully, and so didn't comment on it.

He also told us what he thinks women need in terms of clothes. I object to this sentiment, and I have said so. I have explained why. I have not insulted his intelligence, nor have I intimated MOO is a bad person. I believe just the opposite, and have said so in so many words, in this thread.

As to the argument that nobody else was bothered by it:
- first of all, that's not accurate, as another poster directly after my first post chimed in in apparent agreement. Perhaps I misinterpreted.
- secondly, I don't really care. It doesn't matter to me if other people aren't bothered by what appears to be clear sexist language to me - it bothers me, and I'm going to mention it.

May I also question the consistency of the position of chastising someone on a forum for chastising someone on a forum?

If you think I'm being overly sensitive, say so. If you think this issue is unimportant, that's fine. If you believe that MOO can't evidence unconcious sexism because he's an intelligent, basically good guy, we'll have to agree to disagree.
But this business of telling me that MOO didn't say what he clearly did say - to the point that I have quoted it repeatedly - is not going to get much traction with me personally.