Support NeoGAF

[HolyBaikal]

I don't think it's just either or, the difference is the representation of men and women.

 

[Superflat]

I largely blame the fanbase for shackling the character with that classification.

Yes she has a short skirt and some very unfortunate proportions during FMVs, but she is still portrayed as a character who can handle herself in a pinch, does not make any suggestive advances and also becomes a voice that raises the spirits of the other party members (especially the main character).

Yet years of fan-art from both Japan and America tend to portray her like she's Orihime, completely submissive and barely able to contain her endowments in her own clothing.

Considering what she looks like now, I think Tifa is above all criticisms regarding her appearance, and she really does deserve a spot in any categorized lists of "most empowered female videogame characters".

Say what you will about Advent Children but I freakin love Tifa's costume redesign.

 

[petethepanda]

My first determining factor is whether or not there are body pillows of the character.

 

[Bugs Bunny]

Yo don't that's how. We all have different tastes & interperate things like sexualization & empowerment differently. There is no line, it's all subjective.

 

[pantsmith]

Uh-huh. Sure she did. She's totally a sentient being with agency. e_e

If you are implying a character being fictional is grounds to dismiss their agency within their own universe, then I whole heartedly disagree with you. This goes against most schools of criticism, or at least any I've heard of.

We look to fictional characters as role models and teachers all the time, and physical appearance is just one aspect of that.

When the sexualization is completely one-sided, and often very creepy (not talking about the sorceress here) it's certainly a sign of sexism.

I disagree that the sexualization in Dragon's Crown is one-sided, although the Sorceress is certainly the farthest extreme. Literally everyone in that game is a caricature and greatly exaggerated in one way or another, and if not then they are an homage to some outside fantasy work (because almost everything else in that game is). Calling it sexist is short-sighted and neuters the term when it comes time to actually use it meaningfully.

 

[terrene]

Not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that it's not valid to criticize objectification in a games that are supposed to have a realistic context? That, to me, is getting dangerously close to a complete dismissal along the lines of "it's just pixels lol who cares." I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize an overall trend and cite individual games as examples when they fall into a broader pattern that you take issue with.

No, I'm saying that the calls for practicality in the context of high-fantasy content is a waste of time and a poor argument for making a claim of sexism. Marketing a piece of content to people who want to see female bodies isn't sexist. Enjoying a sexual fantasy isn't sexist.

A culture that excludes women is sexist. Always erring on the side of sexualization for every female character is sexist. Sexualization of the mundane is sexist, as if the "default" female should be showing hella cleavage.

"The girl from Dragon Crown poses in ways that show off her huge boobs and that's unrealistic and therefore wrong" is saying, "anyone who wants to see that in this game is wrong." But why? When a game maker decides they're going to make the (pretty unfortunate and short-sighted) choice to only market their game to horny dudes, that's a valid artistic and business decision to make, and calls for realism in the context of that decision obviously having been made are utterly irrelevant.

It's about the culture, it's about encouraging inclusiveness, it's not about hunched over girls with big boobs. It's valid to say to the creators of Dragon's Crown: "I initially wanted to play that, but judging by the content I saw, you didn't think it was for me, and I felt excluded. I'm here, ready to buy and play games. Make something for me."

That's a great message, and one I hope they would take to heart. It's also quite a completely different sentiment from an angry, offended description of a sexualized display, as if creating or consuming such things was against the Lord's wishes.

Here's the TL;DR. Take this image of "Female Armor Bingo" that a feminist blog put together:

I agree that the majority of these arguments are facile. I laugh at the vast majority of those weak defenses that this image calls out.

Yet, "Art shouldn't be censored," "There's nothing wrong with showing a bit of skin," "Don't expect fantasy to be realistic," and "That's just marketing to men" are all valid things to say. People want to act like it's wrong to just make sexual content for guys who have money and want it. It isn't. In otherwords, I think we can have both - an inclusive gaming culture, and sexual content for dudes. It's big enough for everyone.

 

[Lady Gaia]

I did. Here's my girlfriend's response to this first post...

I... wonder what a lesbian might have to say about all of this....being both a women, and likely into scantily clad women...

I can't speak for all lesbians any more than one woman can speak for all women, but the twin elements your girlfriend mentioned are definitely both in play and there's a natural tension between them. I can say that for me, rampant objectification pretty much prevents me from appreciating someone who is supposed to be an appealing character. On the other hand, I can probably more easily embrace a character's empowering aspects as an excuse for enjoying her sexuality. So yes, I do adore Bayonetta despite the obviously problematic aspects of her portrayal.

 

[RustyNails]

I largely blame the fanbase for shackling the character with that classification.

Yes she has a short skirt and some very unfortunate proportions during FMVs, but she is still portrayed as a character who can handle herself in a pinch, does not make any suggestive advances and also becomes a voice that raises the spirits of the other party members (especially the main character).

Yet years of fan-art from both Japan and America tend to portray her like she's Orihime, completely submissive and barely able to contain her endowments in her own clothing.

Considering what she looks like now, I think Tifa is above all criticisms regarding her appearance, and she really does deserve a spot in any categorized lists of "most empowered female videogame characters".

Of course, but we have come a long, long way from here

I mean, her upper body size is less than half her legs. It's a Barbie with boxing gloves.

 

[UrbanRats]

Who is being shamed for enjoying this? Criticizing art doesn't mean you're criticizing those who enjoy this. Seriously, stop it with that crap already.


Well... yes. Exactly. It amazes me that you apparently understand all that, and yet still think this is about slut-shaming. I could easily use your own rhetoric against you and tell you "what's wrong with a scientist wearing cleavage?! You're such a sex-negative prude!". But of course, that would be an asinine and stupid argument.

Just for the record (since he quote my argument to answer you).
I have no qualms with people criticizing Dragon's Crown, Bayonetta or whatever else.
I do think think it's weird how you see some mental gymnastics to rationalize the sexual content of these games though, and i think seeing both of them as erotic fantasies of sorts, could help frame them in a different light.
Beyond that, if someone is offended, annoyed, embarrassed or any other number of things by said games, i'm not the one to tell them to stop.

Personally i'm not bothered by those two specific games, infact, i quite like the art in both, and find Bayonetta funny, but i understand how they can bother someone, and i don't have an issue with that, either.

 

[not psycho]

I agree that the majority of these arguments are facile. I laugh at the vast majority of those weak defenses that this image calls out.

I don't think it is accurate to call most of them arguments or defenses at all. Sexualization, in itself, does not need an argument or a defense. There is nothing wrong with it in the first place.

If someone asked me "can you defend this character being sexualized", I would respond with "what exactly needs to be defended?" But then I might say some of the silly stuff in this chart. Even something as silly as "Her strength comes from uncovered skin!" or "it helps with her agility!" could be a good response. I mean... maybe it does help with her agility, right? They would be laughable as a "defense", of course, but would be perfectly fine as a descriptor. "It's stylized" would also not be a defense, but rather an explanation for someone who was genuinely confused at the art not looking realistic.

Some of the squares ("girls are supposed to look sexy", "women are weak") are correctly labeled as horrible arguments, but for the most part the image is falsely assuming a defense is always required, and then falsely labeling valid statements as being attempted defenses.


My take is that there are at least three things at play: personal preference, good and bad art, and "right or wrong." Personal preference does not require you to articulate why you don't like something. If you find Dragon's Crown or Bayonetta "gross", you don't have to explain it. It's already valid. It is possible to find something gross while still believing it is, or might be, good art (such as if you can't stand horror movies but think some are good films). You would have no problem with the many people, of both genders, who like it. If I'm a character designer, I will take into account personal preferences while not letting it overwhelm what I want to make.

Good and bad art is best discussed with a little more reasoning. You might say Zero Suit Samus clashes with the way you imagined that universe working, and with the art style you felt had been established, and therefore considered it bad art. You might say that a game's style was boring... just a lame cookie cutter sexualization. You might say that the (non)-armor used by the female characters looked incredibly stupid, especially when placed next to male characters in totally different armor. But you wouldn't say (hopefully) something was bad because it was sexy.

To talk about right or wrong, including something being "sexist", you have to articulate your reasons more than that. Why is a sexy character with unrealistic proportions "sexist"? I have no idea. If I answered that it was stylized, I wouldn't be defending it, I would just be stating a fact. You would not have articulated your viewpoint well enough for me to understand what you thought needed to be defended.

Well, there is a fourth thing I should mention: prevalence. This is what makes the subject so tricky. A perfectly good game, with good art, and nothing inherently sexist, becomes problematic by virtue of being part of a disproportionally used theme. In this case, there is nothing to specifically argue against an individual game, and nothing to defend about an individual game, but the problem remains because of prevalence. Originally, I essentially said "only target bad games", but I guess that doesn't work. Darn. "Bad games" is subjective, and even good games can be a problem when they reinforce an overly common theme.

Then again, you could also argue that games which get it right are good. If a game has sexy characters with agency, treats them with respect for their personality, and overall it fits with the game world and style... couldn't that be a good thing? Yes, it would still count as an example of using an overused thing (sexualization). But, if you wanted to counter all the negative sex-related tropes (such as women as background decoration, women as objects, etc) wouldn't you have to use sexualized characters to do so? If you ignore sex, the negative sex-related tropes stand forever, no? So I don't think overuse is a good reason not to use sexualization in game design.

 

[silvermember]

I don't understand why the discussion always has to be about female oversexualization.

What about male undersexualization?

It's obvious that the male demographic responds well to these sexy female characters. If that's what they want to see in their games, why shouldn't they be able to? If female (or gay male) gamers feel it's unfair, why aren't we doing more to have more sexed-up man candy in games?

Kinda like the argument you sometimes hear about nerfing weapons in an online shooter. "Instead of nerfing this one gun... why not make all the other guns better?"

Unless you are joking probably.

The only reason you believe that is because women and soooooooo objectified that men look objectification seems under-objectified.

 

[zeldablue]

What does it look like when a male character is empowered by sexualization?

Ghirahim?

 

[terrene]

What does it look like when a male character is empowered by sexualization?

That's a little bit irrelevant. Men don't have to reclaim their sexuality from people who want to control it.

 

[LOLCats]

"Women" don't get to speak for every female out there. You will find that women have a large variety of opinions. They're not some singular entity.

Sorry but, women is plural. He did not say ask woman. His comment was short, but im sure its meant as get some opinions from women. We always have these GAF threads about female sexualism in games. But its like a buncha dudes giving theyre opionions. I know some women post and read gaf. But i dont recall too many comments.

For me its simple. Men like women, men play video games, men often like sexy female characters in games. Big fing deal.

 

[Nealand Liquor]

I really do hope once we settle the sexualization of women, we can also see realistic body types for men too. There is a lot a room both ways that could help increase healthy body images for all people.

 

[UrbanRats]

Not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that it's not valid to criticize objectification in a games that are supposed to have a realistic context? That, to me, is getting dangerously close to a complete dismissal along the lines of "it's just pixels lol who cares." I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticize an overall trend and cite individual games as examples when they fall into a broader pattern that you take issue with.

That's not to say the mere appearance of any form of sexism is bad, it depends strongly on context. A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones portrays a world that's full of blatant sexism without endorsing it at all, and it's also full of strong, well-written female characters who subvert the systems that work against them. I can totally accept that argument, but we rarely even get to that level with video games, where a lot of the problematic content is probably thrown in on a whim or as a cynical attempt to make the game more marketable to a certain demographic.

Eh.
At least talking about the TV show, it's full to the brim of gratuitous nudity, almost all of it being female nudity, several scenes with faceless prostitutes, there basically just to fill in the tits per episode quota.

I mean i enjoy the show, and i enjoy female nudity, but i wouldn't use that as a positive example.
-
At least something like Dragon's Crown goes far enough with it to, as i said earlier, enter into the (light) eroticism realm, which to me is better than shoehorning stuff in.

 

[MrCaliaztec]

I know I may get slack for this and it's not seen as the conventional view but it's my honest opinion of all media.

We live in a world of many different characters. We all have different looks based on culture, religion, location, and conditioning and some just play by their own sense of rules.

What does this mean for the people who create worlds in our world? Well they have all of these same things to base thier designs off of just as we do in our real lives. But they are not reserved to designing only their look.

All of these designs have been inspired by real world. We have men and women who dress scantily, we have men and women who shed their clothes for dollar bills, or even have sex for compensation. It's just part of this world. And it's part of our game worlds.

And people will have opinions of them all on their own what they feel is right or wrong sexually. It's not a black or white issue.

I like to think of it this way, if you watch some rap and hip hop videos they completely sexualize and degrade women all at the same time but that does not mean you don't have a large group of women trying to be "Video Girls" whose entire purpose is to be the ass and tits of the video.

People have been sexualized female and male since the start of time it's why we have a sexual identity. Now how much you expose yourself to it is what you have the choice in.

Just my opinion. I don't see it as too crazy or controversial.

 

[Faustek]

You can't.

You can only decide that for your self. Everybone has different thresholds. Some come of as prudish to some(an X) while others come of as deviant's (I according to that X).
You can sympathise with someone who feels like they are treated as a mere representation of the viewers fancy and at the same time cheer someone on who feels empowered by the same thing/kink/what ever.

Scratch that...After spending a few hours on random vids on niconico...yeah just search for Miku or Nitori and man...that's a lot of softcore porn.

Not empowering in anyway just material for the spankbank for those that have that kink.

 

[SuperEpicGuy]

First let me preface by saying I think most of us can agree that there is definitely a problem in Japanese and Western videogames with oversexualization of female characters, women-as-sex-objects-and-nothing-more.

Problem? The target audience is happy with what they're getting. In the new dragon age game I haven't seen any sexy armour choices for my character and am not happy with that. They can put sexy male armour too if they want, but don't limit my choice of armor scantiness (that's a real word I think) thank you very much.

 

[UrbanRats]

Problem? The target audience is happy with what they're getting. In the new dragon age game I haven't seen any sexy armour choices for my character and am not happy with that. They can put sexy male armour too if they want, but don't limit my choice of armor scantiness (that's a real word I think) thank you very much.

Perhaps the sexy armor don't fit at all with the style? When "choice" goes in the way of what you're specifically trying to design, it can be eliminated.

Then again, i find most armors in DA to look like absolute shit, but that's beyond the point.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

I didn't accuse you of disallowing them, I accused you of calling those fantasies problematic and/or sexist. That's an attempt to shame people for enjoying them

"The girl from Dragon Crown poses in ways that show off her huge boobs and that's unrealistic and therefore wrong" is saying, "anyone who wants to see that in this game is wrong.

No. No it is not. Your repeating of this statement over and over again does not make it true. You can enjoy something while still being critical of it. The hell?

Dragon's Crown was my GotY 2013. To say that I want to shame people for enjoying the game is so off-base it's beyond pathetic.

A culture that excludes women is sexist. Always erring on the side of sexualization for every female character is sexist. Sexualization of the mundane is sexist, as if the "default" female should be showing hella cleavage.

Like... in Dragon's Crown? xD

Side note: If you wouldn't like to be considered a prude, maybe don't post like you need a fainting couch and smelling salts while you describe clothes-on showings of sexual attributes.

LOL. Fucking wow. Okay, I'm done engaging with you.

Then say why you thought it was a poorly constructed, sex-negative argument instead of calling someone else a prude. Ad hominem is still a logical fallacy even if the other person did it first.

Hey now, I didn't do any ad hominem. I called his argument stupid, not him. But he called me a prude and sex-negative and worse, dismissed my point of view based on this personal attack (so textbook ad hominem). There's a difference.

If you are implying a character being fictional is grounds to dismiss their agency within their own universe, then I whole heartedly disagree with you. This goes against most schools of criticism, or at least any I've heard of.

You missed the point, which is saying that "this fictional character drawn by a real-life artist totally chose to look/dress like that!" is not an argument at all.

We look to fictional characters as role models and teachers all the time

Wait, what

I disagree that the sexualization in Dragon's Crown is one-sided, although the Sorceress is certainly the farthest extreme.

Actually... she is not. Have you played the game? Literally every single female character except the elf (who still has the boobs-and-butt pose, but I'll let it slide) and the (doe-eyed and brain-dead) princess are sexualized and not just a little, but far from every male is. So it's definitely one-sided.

It's about the culture, it's about encouraging inclusiveness, it's not about hunched over girls with big boobs. It's valid to say to the creators of Dragon's Crown: "I initially wanted to play that, but judging by the content I saw, you didn't think it was for me, and I felt excluded. I'm here, ready to buy and play games. Make something for me."

Which is what critics are saying, and not the latter strawman.

Problem? The target audience is happy with what they're getting. In the new dragon age game I haven't seen any sexy armour choices for my character and am not happy with that. They can put sexy male armour too if they want, but don't limit my choice of armor scantiness (that's a real word I think) thank you very much.

Why shouldn't they? Isn't artistic vision sancrosanct?
You have eleventy billion games to choose from with sexy armour. RPGs with female characters in non-sexy armour are the rarity rather than the norm. For once there is a game that will not alienate players who hate it and you have the nerve to not only complain but actually tell developers to change their artistic vision. Amazing!

 

[finalflame]

I just kinda play the game and don't think about it at all. Not even for a second.

 

[UrbanRats]

Actually... she is not. Have you played the game? Literally every single female character except the elf (who still has the boobs-and-butt pose, but I'll let it slide) and the (doe-eyed and brain-dead) princess are sexualized and not just a little, but far from every male is. So it's definitely one-sided.

This is why i consider the game to be closer to erotic art (though they would probably never call it that, to avoid a much harsher ESRB/PEGI rating).
Some of those artwork aren't just your classic accentuation of sexual elements (like you have in many games), but straight up erotic imagery.

 

[joshcryer]

It's trivial to determine whether something is sexualized or not. The question is whether the characters in question are being erotic. Is the character intentionally titalizing the player? Trying to evoke a sexual response?

Of course, this is too objective for debate, because it's pretty easy to tell whether or not a game or game character is trying to stimulate the players. There's pretty much a clear demarcation there. The easiest way to test it is, "Would you play this game with your family in the room?" Unless you enjoy watching pornography around your family, it's unlikely.

No one takes seriously people who shit on shows like Game of Thrones despite the highly sexual nature of certain aspects of that show. In fact, whenever someone makes that sort of argument, they're shut down quickly. People enjoy that show, that series of books, and view it as it is, artistic storytelling.

Of course, to merely mention the word "artistic" when it comes to video games, evokes the ever lasting argument that "videogames aren't art," and that may help justify those who want to put a limitation on the artistic storytelling aspects of videogames.

But it ain't happening, it's all a joke, people will make what they want, other people will consume it, the world will continue rotating, and games will continue to be made. It is all basically a pointless endeavor and always will be.

So, while it may be trivial to determine if a character is being sexualized, if you throw some objective merits out there, there will invariably be some crossing the lines here or there. A game with the storytelling like Game of Thrones could be simultaneously be called sadistic, sexual, incestual, vile, corrupt, immoral, rape fantasy, racist, murderous, and all sorts of things in between.

But it'd get fucking 10/10s and those complaining about various oversexual aspect of videogames would be ignored.

 

[terrene]

No. No it is not. Your repeating of this statement over and over again does not make it true. You can enjoy something while still being critical of it. The hell?

Dragon's Crown was my GotY 2013. To say that I want to shame people for enjoying the game is so off-base it's beyond pathetic.

It's immaterial that you enjoyed the game as a whole. We're discussing how problematic one specific thing about it was. That really shouldn't be a difficult concept.

Like... in Dragon's Crown? xD

So, your argument is that the magical sorceress in a fantasy game full of disproportionate character designs is "mundane" and thus an opportunity for female designs to conform with real life? Um, okay.

LOL. Fucking wow. Okay, I'm done engaging with you.

Good.

 

[baterism]

Eh dunno, I don't really think the connection between two is that clear. This is this, that is that; for me in case of video game/entertainment and real world. But what do I know? *shrug*

 

[Harusame]

I did a recent academic essay regarding this topic and for me it took a while to formulate the differences between the sexual objectification of females versus their empowerment in video games. However one key thing that kept appearing in my endeavour was the idea of having 'agency' - meaning that she has a defined personality and owns her sexuality. This mainly goes in line with the discussion of female representation and portrayal. So for me, if a female character has a pronounced agency and that the character does not necessarily pander to the male demographic, then I would say that character is empowered.

 

[Applecot]

You don''t, instead these concepts are all constructs of personal opinion with natural bias and cultural influence.

If in the eye of the beholders the average number of people who think it's sexualisation vs empowerment (or whatever other word you want to call it) then it would be considered the dominant discourse within that subset of people.
Not to mention that the choice to sexualise one self can be considered empowering to some individuals.

 

[Rwinterhalter]

Here's the TL;DR. Take this image of "Female Armor Bingo" that a feminist blog put together:

I agree that the majority of these arguments are facile. I laugh at the vast majority of those weak defenses that this image calls out.

Yet, "Art shouldn't be censored," "There's nothing wrong with showing a bit of skin," "Don't expect fantasy to be realistic," and "That's just marketing to men" are all valid things to say. People want to act like it's wrong to just make sexual content for guys who have money and want it. It isn't. In otherwords, I think we can have both - an inclusive gaming culture, and sexual content for dudes. It's big enough for everyone.

Bingo cards are a bullshit rhetorical crutch. Pointing out that arguments are often made, does not invalidate those arguments. It's an image designed to signal others on one's side that you're in the in-group. It's just an easy cognitive trick to make one think that they are engaging with opposing ideas while remaining snugly in a comfortable epistemic bubble.

This essay by Freddie DeBoer describes much of this thread all to well. http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/04/29/bingo-cards-go-both-ways/

 

[NuclearSpy]

It's trivial to determine whether something is sexualized or not. The question is whether the characters in question are being erotic. Is the character intentionally titalizing the player? Trying to evoke a sexual response?

Of course, this is too objective for debate, because it's pretty easy to tell whether or not a game or game character is trying to stimulate the players. There's pretty much a clear demarcation there. The easiest way to test it is, "Would you play this game with your family in the room?" Unless you enjoy watching pornography around your family, it's unlikely.

Huh? I'm sorry, but this is a terrible test.

First of all, your "test" assumes a moral standard (specifically yours).
Let me make something clear here, folks. What we find sexual is certainly not independent from us at all. I wouldn't be the first to admit that stuff that evokes a sexual response from the entire human race is incredibly vast.

We all like different things. Go figure.

 

[Applecot]

"Would you play this game with your family in the room?" Unless you enjoy watching pornography around your family, it's unlikely.

I don't play pokemon in front of my family either. This isn't a valid argument.

 

[G.O.O.]

"Do I feel inspired or just attracted by this person ?"

First is pretty rare

 

[joshcryer]

First of all, your "test" assumes a moral standard (specifically yours).

That's what the whole debate about sexualization is, it's a morality test. I was posing a generalized test. Obviously there would be outliers who wouldn't fit that test. Applecot apparently won't play Pokemon in front of their family, there's a flaw in it, naturally.

We all like different things. Go figure.

If we're just being reasonable, we can distinguish between sexualized content, intentionally sexualized for stimulation, and content that may have a glamorised nature to it but isn't intending for you to be sexually stimulated by it, in general. That doesn't mean some people wouldn't be. This may be what actually incites the moral panic, because a lot of these games are targeted at teen males, and, well, little do they know but anything sets off the raging hormones of a teenage male.

 

[misho8723]

Well, we all know how the female characters in Vampire Bloodlines look like - great faces, great bodies, big breasts, "clothes" they were , etc. and they are still one of the best female characters in gaming.. VV, Venus, Jeanette, Ming-Xiao, Heather (if the player wants her to wear skimpy clothes), Lily, Yukie Ogami, etc. are still one of my personally favorite female characters in gaming ever - sure, the looks help but their personalities are so good written and so interesting, that you don't care how they look in the first place

 

[Endo Punk]

empowerment is sexy and being sexy is empowering.

 

[Zoe]

Call me a traitor to my gender or whatever, but I really like Cidney's full design.

 

[Kinyou]

Bingo cards are a bullshit rhetorical crutch. Pointing out that arguments are often made, does not invalidate those arguments. It's an image designed to signal others on one's side that you're in the in-group. It's just an easy cognitive trick to make one think that they are engaging with opposing ideas while remaining snugly in a comfortable epistemic bubble.

This essay by Freddie DeBoer describes much of this thread all to well. http://fredrikdeboer.com/2014/04/29/bingo-cards-go-both-ways/

The Gamergate discussions brought the whole Bingo thing to new levels of ridiculousness by having both sides create their own bingo cards.

 

[Tye The Czar]

Has anyone brought up this satirical webcomic from HARK! A Vagrant! at all? I think it's excellent:

The statement I think it's trying to make is: Being a strong, empowered female lead and being sexualized are two separate things. It just seems like the latter is a prerequisite for the former.

 

[Zoe]

Has anyone brought up this satirical webcomic at all? I think it's excellent.

The statement I think it's trying to make is: Being a strong, empowered female lead and being sexualized are two separate things. It just seems like the latter is a prerequisite for the former.

I think it's more like the former is a prerequisite for the latter, and some people are setting that bar very, very high.

 

[Inuhanyou]

What i look for in a character isn't based on her clothes or what she's wearing(most of the time). Instead, i look at the character's position of strength in the narrative, what they are portrayed as, how they are represented in the story, what their value is.

For example, i don't care about Lulu having huge tits because she's a pretty well rounded character with a lot of past regrets and is a mentor figure to the kids of the series. She's shown to be quick witted individual who won't let anyone walk on her, and is as far away from a stereotype as possible

 

[Zabant]

Depends on your viewpoint and culture, It can be both, even at the same time.

It's also why making an argument for or against such designs and not acknowledging both viewpoints is dishonest.

 

[Coover]

True, characters can be both. A woman in a game can have a great narrative, character development, personality, and be very erotic. Is it right to use those things, however, to say over-sexualization of her character showing impossible to reach standards for women is OK? Just because something positive is done, doesn't automatically make the negative things it does alright.

 

[Scrabble]

Why do buzz words like "strength" and "strong" even matter? I don't give a fuck about strong characters, I want "good" characters." There are plenty of "strong" and "independent" male characters in games that are absolutely shitty characters. So simply ascribing those attributes to a female character and saying she's better for it seems incredibly condescending, and quite frankly just another form of sexism to me. The boss from MGS3 is probably my favorite character in a game, male or female, and "strong" or "independent" are probably the last words i'd use to describe her because how "strong" a character is really doesn't mean anything to me. Does that character have depth, are they interesting, do they have weaknesses that I can relate to, etc. These are things I look for in a well rounded character. I think we do a great disservice to the quality of characters if all we look for and examine is how "strong" a character is. But worst of all is that we only seem to look for these attributes in female characters. Does no one else see this mindset as more damaging than "oh my god a character with big boobs has cleavage"? It feels like a parent protecting or looking after their child, as opposed to just being seen as equal.

When Rambo in First Blood breaks down and starts crying, it's a powerful moment because throughout the entire film the only side of him we've seen was this super strong hardened bad ass. To see the human underneath the facade is the whole point of the film. I can't help but think that if Rambo was replaced with a woman, it would then be judged much more harshly on account "oh so she's a woman and getting emotional, I see what you did." Does no one else see the sexism that exists with that type of attitude? It reminds me of the reaction with the Tomb Raider reboot when they attempted to actually make Lara resemble a human. People were actually upset to see her show emotion, comparing her to Nathan Drake because "Drake doesn't brake down, drake isn't sobbing or showing emotion" well that's because Drake is a one dimensional character that doesn't resemble a human. The fact that a male character is allowed to be anything we want them to be, while a female characters must adhere to standards we've created of what's "strong" or must have a specific body type as to not be sexist or pandering or what ever the fuck, is a big problem that no one ever talks about because all we can seem to judge are how big a woman's boobs are and if she's showing too much cleavage.

 

[Zabant]

Why do buzz words like "strength" and "strong" even matter? I don't give a fuck about strong characters, I want "good" characters." There are plenty of "strong" and "independent" male characters in games that are absolutely shitty characters. So simply ascribing those attributes to a female character and saying she's better for it seems incredibly condescending, and quite frankly just another form of sexism to me. The boss from MGS3 is probably my favorite character in a game, male or female, and "strong" or "independent" are probably the last words i'd use to describe her because how "strong" a character is really doesn't mean anything to me. Does that character have depth, are they interesting, do they have weaknesses that I can relate to, etc. These are things I look for in a well rounded character. I think we do a great disservice to the quality of characters if all we look for and examine is how "strong" a character is. But worst of all is that we only seem to look for these attributes in female characters. Does no one else see this mindset as more damaging than "oh my god a character with big boobs has cleavage"? It feels like a parent protecting or looking after their child, as opposed to just being seen as equal.

When Rambo in First Blood breaks down and starts crying, it's a powerful moment because throughout the entire film the only side of him we've seen was this super strong hardened bad ass. To see the human underneath the facade is the whole point of the film. I can't help but think that if Rambo was replaced with a woman, it would then be judged much more harshly on account "oh so she's a woman and getting emotional, I see what you did." Does no one else see the sexism that exists with that type of attitude? It reminds me of the reaction with the Tomb Raider reboot when they attempted to actually make Lara resemble a human. People were actually upset to see her show emotion, comparing her to Nathan Drake because "Drake doesn't brake down, drake isn't sobbing or showing emotion" well that's because Drake is a one dimensional character that doesn't resemble a human. The fact that a male character is allowed to be anything we want them to be, while a female characters must adhere to standards we've created of what's "strong" or must have a specific body type as to not be sexist or pandering or what ever the fuck, is a big problem that no one ever talks about because all we can seem to judge are how big a woman's boobs are and if she's showing too much cleavage.

Very well said. In a quest to 'root out sexism' in modern media many people are unknowingly pushing forward a different form of sexism, one that will arguably be harder to undo as it's harder to spot.

I'm gonna start calling this 'affirmative sexism'

 

[Lady Gaia]

empowerment is sexy and being sexy is empowering.

... which is clearly why sex workers are among the most powerful people in our society, and pin-ups of Margaret Thatcher were so common. No? Perhaps it's worth pondering, just for a moment, why your assertion might not hold water.

 

[Zabant]

... which is clearly why sex workers are among the most powerful people in our society, and pin-ups of Margaret Thatcher were so common. No? Perhaps it's worth pondering, just for a moment, why your assertion might not hold water.

It's undeniable that many women feel that being sexy makes them feel empowered.

Isn't that also important?

 

[Dice]

Uh, when people say "a strong character" they mean all that depth and complexity and thought behind it. Like... structurally strong to the construction of the story. Likewise, when people say "a weak character" they mean one that adds nothing meaningful.

However, I do see what you mean. To many it tends to go like this:

Old narrative
Power = Good
Masculine = Powerful
Feminine = Weak
Men = Good
Women = Weak and subjugated

New narrative
Power = Good
Powerful traits = Can be owned by both genders
Weak traits = Should be discarded by subjugated
Heteronormative Men = Good
"Empowered" (powerful traits) Women = Good too

But there are obvious problems here. First it is easy to see what then happens to the girly girls. They are still considered weak and deserving to be subjugated by those enforcing patriarchy, and yet are also blamed for not empowering themselves by those vying for feminine power, their preferences rejected for "playing into the patriarchy" and thus they themselves are rejected by the women who claim to be fighting for women. A bit harder to see but still as real are the girly guys and transpersons who don't fit in the model, anyone who doesn't wish to define themselves by power.

So there is a big problem in thinking diversify roles = make powerful roles, stemming from the worship of power that is the foundation of patriarchy. Granted, power is desirable for oneself. If there are oppressed demographics, we want to figure out how to empower them. Not just to give them more, but how to get them to a place where they can wield it so as to be strong in themselves. That is a difficult thing requiring education, opportunity, skill, and ambition. In that process it can be easy to glorify power, but we need to be weary of conflating the value of a goal with those who have attained that goal.

In our view of persons, we need to recognize inherent value and potential in a human being and esteem and care after that. If a person doesn't fit the most marketable model, if a person has been through traumas and is damaged, if a person is negatively affected by systematic oppression and doesn't hold as much opportunity because it is being stifled, it should not lower our view of them simply because their power is lowered. Our esteem and value of diversity will not come from wrangling equal power for all of them, but when we drop the notion of valuing people for their power, we will value them across the full diversity despite the differences of power, and ultimately that equal value will help to establish equal power being granted. This was recognized by Karl Marx in his description and criticism of commodity fetishism.

No surprise from one of the most recognized humanists of the modern age. It's something I came to understand more clearly when I did some humanitarian work in South Africa. The people there were incredibly friendly and generous even though they were in such dire straights that they shouldn't have been giving to us who had no need. It was quickly apparent to me that they were just happy because "high and powerful" Americans had bothered to visit "low people" like them, perhaps akin to how I would feel if Obama just dropped by my house. That is the message the world had ingrained in them. They thought it because that was the reality of how the world treated them. Ultimately it is a worship of power, and it is harmful, and leads to harmful social patterns.

So the key to getting women into a better place is going to involve giving them more power, and accepting powerful roles from them, but that in itself is not the work to be done and if it is confused as such we'll essentially just be establishing that it is okay for women who hold power to subjugate those in weaker positions, too.

 

[RocBase]

I think the argument should be about the lack of non-sexualized female characters and not how sexualized sexualized characters are.

I don't really care about the latter but the former has me interested.

Couldn't agree with this more. I also think more positive discussion will come out of the former argument.

 

[Kinyou]

I think it's more like the former is a prerequisite for the latter, and some people are setting that bar very, very high.

Yeah, it's even pretty hard to get a consensus on what makes a strong female character. I remember someone saying that Bonny from Red Dead Redemption isn't a strong character because she gets kidnapped at one point in the game, which I found kind of ridiculous. As if that one instance would negate the entire build up of the character.

 

[tanod]

1) Participation or Role in the game's plot
2) Consistency of art style between male and female
3) Depends on whether playable character or non-playable character