388 réponses à ce sujet

[whykikyouwhy]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Correct, that is the issue I have with "current" feminism, it is biased in favor of one gender. It is not about equality anymore (though in past it potentially was). It is in it's rawest form about promotion of female agenda these days and not tackling it as an issue for both genders. Sexism is not about women only unlike feminism which is anti-male / pro-female agenda, sexism is both genders and that is the "ism" that matters to me. In debates such as these on here, whether regarding armour or appearence it should be takled about both gender types not just one instead of the other. Both men and women like to look at attractive male and female characters, both do not make sense in wearing heavy armour for agile characters and light armour for front line warriors. Tackle it and treat it equally for both genders.

Regarding the bolded - feminism is not "anti-male." That's a misconception. Feminism is about the pursuit of people being judged/viewed as people, and not as a stereotype.

[Dragoonlordz]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Correct, that is the issue I have with "current" feminism, it is biased in favor of one gender. It is not about equality anymore (though in past it potentially was). It is in it's rawest form about promotion of female agenda these days and not tackling it as an issue for both genders. Sexism is not about women only unlike feminism which is anti-male / pro-female agenda, sexism is both genders and that is the "ism" that matters to me. In debates such as these on here, whether regarding armour or appearence it should be takled about both gender types not just one instead of the other. Both men and women like to look at attractive male and female characters, both do not make sense in wearing heavy armour for agile characters and light armour for front line warriors. Tackle it and treat it equally for both genders.

Regarding the bolded - feminism is not "anti-male." That's a misconception. Feminism is about the pursuit of people being judged/viewed as people, and not as a stereotype.

It is no misconception some use it for that purpose and some do not. Though I did generalise.

Ironically generalisation is a form of equality too. The irony was not lost on me.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 01 octobre 2012 - 11:39 .

[Russalka]

For the sake of discussion, note my reply on the previous page.

[hoorayforicecream]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Correct, that is the issue I have with "current" feminism, it is biased in favor of one gender. It is not about equality anymore (though in past it potentially was). It is in it's rawest form about promotion of female agenda these days and not tackling it as an issue for both genders. Sexism is not about women only unlike feminism which is anti-male / pro-female agenda, sexism is both genders and that is the "ism" that matters to me.

Feminism is anti-male the same way that abolition is anti-slaveowner.

[Elrena]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Correct, that is the issue I have with "current" feminism, it is biased in favor of one gender. It is not about equality anymore (though in past it potentially was). It is in it's rawest form about promotion of female agenda these days and not tackling it as an issue for both genders. Sexism is not about women only unlike feminism which is anti-male / pro-female agenda, sexism is both genders and that is the "ism" that matters to me. In debates such as these on here, whether regarding armour or appearence it should be takled about both gender types not just one instead of the other. Both men and women like to look at attractive male and female characters, both do not make sense in wearing heavy armour for agile characters and light armour for front line warriors. Tackle it and treat it equally for both genders.

Regarding the bolded - feminism is not "anti-male." That's a misconception. Feminism is about the pursuit of people being judged/viewed as people, and not as a stereotype.

It is no misconception some use it for that purpose and some do not. Though I did generalise.

Ironically generalisation is a form of equality too. Treating everyone the same.

Generalisation is a form of equality, but equal and deliberate misrepresentation doesn't help anyone. Some, and they are the vocal minority, feminists are anti-male. Most are, as whykikyouwhy said, are persuing a world where people will be viewed and judged as people, and not a stereotype. That's admirable, is it not? Unless you consider that pursuit anti-male, by virtue of largely combating female stereotypes instead of male (because those are already being addressed in mainstream mediums), feminism is not anti-male itself. 
Speaking up against stereotypical portrayals of women, doesn't make someone a misandrist. 

[Sylvianus]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Correct, that is the issue I have with "current" feminism, it is biased in favor of one gender. It is not about equality anymore (though in past it potentially was). It is in it's rawest form about promotion of female agenda these days and not tackling it as an issue for both genders. Sexism is not about women only unlike feminism which is anti-male / pro-female agenda, sexism is both genders and that is the "ism" that matters to me. In debates such as these on here, whether regarding armour or appearence it should be takled about both gender types not just one instead of the other. Both men and women like to look at attractive male and female characters, both do not make sense in wearing heavy armour for agile characters and light armour for front line warriors. Tackle it and treat it equally for both genders.

Regarding the bolded - feminism is not "anti-male." That's a misconception. Feminism is about the pursuit of people being judged/viewed as people, and not as a stereotype.

It is no misconception some use it for that purpose and some do not.

Ironically generalisation is a form of equality too. The irony was not lost on me.

* applause *

Absolutely. Especially on the bsn. It's like everything anyway, there are extremists everywhere. I support the true meaning of feminism, not those who distort the principles for whatever reasons that cross their minds. I have no sympathy for these ones and I never will, and I couldn't care less about what they think.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 01 octobre 2012 - 11:46 .

[Xilizhra]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Correct, that is the issue I have with "current" feminism, it is biased in favor of one gender. It is not about equality anymore (though in past it potentially was). It is in it's rawest form about promotion of female agenda these days and not tackling it as an issue for both genders. Sexism is not about women only unlike feminism which is anti-male / pro-female agenda, sexism is both genders and that is the "ism" that matters to me.

Feminism is anti-male the same way that abolition is anti-slaveowner.

Er... no it's not. Not remotely. That's sort of a horrible analogy, because unlike slaveowners, males aren't a group that feminism intends to completely abolish, or even attack.

[legbamel]

To be fair, to some people those are both the case. As a generalization, however, it's about as true as people generally assume generalizations to be.

Modifié par legbamel, 01 octobre 2012 - 11:46 .

[Vandicus]

Russalka wrote...

Do you think attraction is primary when designing men? And what about women?

The comic was not meant to dispel the idea that men in games are ONLY power fantasies, but to show that if attraction was emphasised as much as it is for women, it could come off as uncomfortable.

I do not deny that people of any gender want to see some eye-candy. It is just that it is not exactly balanced, at least it seems so to myself.

Again the comic launches an ad homined attack in its portrayal of the opponent, and also makes the assumption that males are inherently uncomfortable with female eye candy. I beg to differ. With examples :happy:


Aizen

http://images3.wikia.../a/ab/Aizen.png

He is what is known as bishounen in anime. His appearance is designed to appeal to females. However he's also a total badass. Bishounen characters(ones whose appearance is primarily designed to appeal to females) have plenty of examples of being extremely popular among the male fanbase. 

Some female eye candy characters are also hated by males. Some Twilight characters come to mind. Generally I find they're not hated because of their status as eye candy, or their physical appearance, but are hated when they lack anything besides being eye candy. Disliked for being flat or boring in other words.

Modifié par Vandicus, 01 octobre 2012 - 11:49 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Personally, I find the concept that ALL characters of ANY race/gender/profession/hair color ought to be like one specific thing to be absurd.

[mousestalker]

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Correct, that is the issue I have with "current" feminism, it is biased in favor of one gender. It is not about equality anymore (though in past it potentially was). It is in it's rawest form about promotion of female agenda these days and not tackling it as an issue for both genders. Sexism is not about women only unlike feminism which is anti-male / pro-female agenda, sexism is both genders and that is the "ism" that matters to me. In debates such as these on here, whether regarding armour or appearence it should be takled about both gender types not just one instead of the other. Both men and women like to look at attractive male and female characters, both do not make sense in wearing heavy armour for agile characters and light armour for front line warriors. Tackle it and treat it equally for both genders.

Regarding the bolded - feminism is not "anti-male." That's a misconception. Feminism is about the pursuit of people being judged/viewed as people, and not as a stereotype.

Which is why saying that games should feel free to objectify men as well, isn't the answer. The point is that no one should be objectified.

[Russalka]

@Vandicus

Well, fair enough. But a big muscle mountain of a man still does not equal a voluptous woman in my eyes, when it comes to measuring attractiveness. Oh, but this could spiral down into an "everything's subjective" abyss like that.

I still ask, do you think attractiveness is primary when designing men and when designing women?

Modifié par Russalka, 01 octobre 2012 - 11:56 .

[Elrena]

Vandicus wrote...

Russalka wrote...

Do you think attraction is primary when designing men? And what about women?

The comic was not meant to dispel the idea that men in games are ONLY power fantasies, but to show that if attraction was emphasised as much as it is for women, it could come off as uncomfortable.

I do not deny that people of any gender want to see some eye-candy. It is just that it is not exactly balanced, at least it seems so to myself.

Again the comic launches an ad homined attack in its portrayal of the opponent, and also makes the assumption that males are inherently uncomfortable with female eye candy. I beg to differ. With examples :happy:


Aizen

http://images3.wikia.../a/ab/Aizen.png

He is what is known as bishounen in anime. His appearance is designed to appear to females. However he's also a total badass. Bishounen characters(ones whose appearance is primarily designed to appeal to females) have plenty of examples of being extremely popular among the male fanbase. 

Some female eye candy characters are also hated by males. Some Twilight characters come to mind. Generally I find they're not hated because of their status as eye candy, or their physical appearance, but are hated when they lack anything besides being eye candy. Disliked for being flat or boring in other words.

Ah, but aren't we talking about Western media, and Bioware specifically? Different cultures have different attitudes towards portrayals of gender. Bishounen characters, are designed to appeal to women by virtue of their slender frames, large eyes and (typically) kind, vulnerable and sensitive demeanors (there are exceptions, of course, but am speaking from personal experience with female-targeted anime's such as Fruits Basket), vs. Edward or Jacob (or even Bella's father, for that matter) in Twilight, who are muscular, abusive alpha-males. I despise Twilight and its male and female characters because of the negative stereotypes of both genders and the abusive relationships it has taught many young women to regard as desireable. 

[Vandicus]

mousestalker wrote...

whykikyouwhy wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Correct, that is the issue I have with "current" feminism, it is biased in favor of one gender. It is not about equality anymore (though in past it potentially was). It is in it's rawest form about promotion of female agenda these days and not tackling it as an issue for both genders. Sexism is not about women only unlike feminism which is anti-male / pro-female agenda, sexism is both genders and that is the "ism" that matters to me. In debates such as these on here, whether regarding armour or appearence it should be takled about both gender types not just one instead of the other. Both men and women like to look at attractive male and female characters, both do not make sense in wearing heavy armour for agile characters and light armour for front line warriors. Tackle it and treat it equally for both genders.

Regarding the bolded - feminism is not "anti-male." That's a misconception. Feminism is about the pursuit of people being judged/viewed as people, and not as a stereotype.

Which is why saying that games should feel free to objectify men as well, isn't the answer. The point is that no one should be objectified.

We're basically using a modified version of the word right now. Literal objectification without exception makes for a crappy character, since their sex appeal is(by definition) their only trait. One dimensional characters are one dimensional.

As far as I can understand it, we're discussing the issue with an understanding that objectification either means attaching any sex appeal whatsoever, or making sex appeal prominent in a character, not relegating them to the realm of one dimensional sex toys.

[Dragoonlordz]

Russalka wrote...

Do you think attraction is primary when designing men? And what about women?

The comic was not meant to dispel the idea that men in games are ONLY power fantasies, but to show that if attraction was emphasised as much as it is for women, it could come off as uncomfortable.

I do not deny that people of any gender want to see some eye-candy. It is just that it is not exactly balanced, at least it seems so to myself.

Attraction plays a part in designing male and female characters. You seem to assume there are not many male character with feminine traits in games and other media, there are pretty ones and ugly ones, OTT buff ones and half naked ones constantly. Just like the same goes for female ones, pretty, ugly, buff and exaggerated ones. The uncomfortable argument is a fallacy to me. An attempt to distract from the reality that both genders enjoy playing characters that are attractive to them and both have game characters designed based on attractive traits. No one gender is alone in this.

Most developers exaggerate both gender types in games which in itself is a form of equality because neither are realistic whether male or female ones. What your trying to do is say what you find attractive in games is uncomfortable for men, thats sexist in itself too in the sense why do you think it would be uncomfortable? I would have no problem at all as a guy playing a character which looked like shown in that picture. Zero discomfort in the slightest. Some developers take it too far whether it is male characters or female ones but most do not.

Now if most male characters in games wore a tutu and high heels then yes you might have point that might be uncomfortable to some men but only because such men still get shunned in todays society which is a real world social acceptance issue not video game one. You do not see men screaming and crying over when a male character is shown in his underpants even though is common place in games to have semi-naked men everywhere. It is actually quite rare to have a male protaganist which is even close to realtiy of most men in appearence. I can only think off top of my head maybe half dozen games over decades with realistic non exaggerated male lead characters I have played.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 octobre 2012 - 12:10 .

[Vandicus]

Russalka wrote...

@Vandicus

Well, fair enough. But a big muscle mountain of a man still does not equal a voluptous woman in my eyes, when it comes to measuring attractiveness. Oh, but this could spiral down into an "everything's subjective" abyss like that.

I still ask, do you think attractiveness is primary when designing men and when designing women?

The comic was not entirely erronous, but it was dismissive and did not attempt to present a full view of its opponents, instead attempting to attack a particular line of thought that equates muscular men to voluptous women(I'm of the opinion that these are both intended to fufill male fantasies), whilst ignoring other lines of more legitimate argument.

Its outright wrong in portraying men as inherently hostile to female eye candy. I've yet to meet a person who objected to female eyecandy on the basis of it being female eyecandy(bishounen badasses are increasingly common lately and the male fanbase is generally very receptive). 

Wish fufillment is the primary characteristic in designing characters I find. Markets will tend to cater to their demographics, and comics have long been male dominated(manga is really just another form of comics, but that aside I'm treating it as a separate market here). Markets with shared demopgrahics can provide attractive females and males without ticking off either portion of the fanbase from what I've seen(manga/anime being my primary source).

[Russalka]

Ugh, I sometimes think the local society I live in clouds my judgement when it comes to arguments like these. Because here (not on the forum, but here as in here in real life) I definitely have to argue in these terms, but it may not apply elsewhere at all.

Modifié par Russalka, 02 octobre 2012 - 12:08 .

[philippe willaume]

Plaintiff wrote...

Cimeas wrote...

The Witcher 2 is absolutely not sexist. It is set in a world where rape, sexism and misogyny are common. If anything, it is a much more interesting fantasy than Dragon Age because that's really what medieval Europe was like.

But Thedas is not Medieval Europe, and was never intended to reflect Medieval Europe.

Why is a game that apes the social and cultural mores of Medieval Europe more "interesting" than one that creates a setting that is mostly original?

Well and it might not even ape it that well... for those intereted read christine de pisan.
and medieval europe was not a cultural hegemony so the status of women was not the same in France or Germany as well as it varied according to the time periode.
that being said sexism or not  isabelle de  valois, margaritte d'anjou or Yolande d'aragon where real polical leaders. 

Phil

[CuriousArtemis]

Oh my gosh, what happened to this topic! lol

[Dragoonlordz]

motomotogirl wrote...

Oh my gosh, what happened to this topic! lol

Well Maria's comment about TW2 annoyed me so I responded to that issue, but I think the comic linked by Russalka ruffled a lot of feathers (probably not intentionally trying to cause offense), which really took this topic in another direction.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 02 octobre 2012 - 12:17 .

[Maria Caliban]

Russalka wrote...

Wait, is it even objectification then?

Sexualization is not the same as objectification, though for female character, they tend to be intertwined.

Vandicus wrote...

Objectification in writing typically means making a character sexually appealing to people who are interested in that gender, and focusing on this aspect to an at least moderate extent.

This is incorrect. You can sexually objectify a character or person, but there are other ways of doing so.

Batman: Arkham Asylum portrayed all the inmates as violent psychopaths. That's a form of objectification. The majority of people in mental institutions are more a danger to themselves than to others. People with special needs and the elderly are also shuffled off to those types of facilities.

But the game doesn't want to deal with the reality of an asylum. It wants evil people you can brutally beat up on.

[Russalka]

Hmm, but was there ever as much discussion on BSN nitpicking on male companion appearance as much as there were those for female characters?

I recall a few dreadful threads about Morrigan and Isabela. Aveline gets called a man a lot.

Modifié par Russalka, 02 octobre 2012 - 12:21 .

[Vandicus]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Russalka wrote...

Wait, is it even objectification then?

Sexualization is not the same as objectification, though for female character, they tend to be intertwined.

Vandicus wrote...

Objectification in writing typically means making a character sexually appealing to people who are interested in that gender, and focusing on this aspect to an at least moderate extent.

This is incorrect. You can sexually objectify a character or person, but there are other ways of doing so.

Batman: Arkham Asylum portrayed all the inmates as violent psychopaths. That's a form of objectification. The majority of people in mental institutions are more a danger to themselves than to others. People with special needs and the elderly are also shuffled off to those types of facilities.

But the game doesn't want to deal with the reality of an asylum. It wants evil people you can brutally beat up on.

I stipulate that the term has been co-opted in discussion of writing. People no longer use the word to mean its definition, any more than they use the word epic properly in regards to literature.

[KiwiQuiche]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Russalka wrote...

Wait, is it even objectification then?

Sexualization is not the same as objectification, though for female character, they tend to be intertwined.

Vandicus wrote...

Objectification in writing typically means making a character sexually appealing to people who are interested in that gender, and focusing on this aspect to an at least moderate extent.

This is incorrect. You can sexually objectify a character or person, but there are other ways of doing so.

Batman: Arkham Asylum portrayed all the inmates as violent psychopaths. That's a form of objectification. The majority of people in mental institutions are more a danger to themselves than to others. People with special needs and the elderly are also shuffled off to those types of facilities.

But the game doesn't want to deal with the reality of an asylum. It wants evil people you can brutally beat up on.

To be fair with Arkham it was for the extreme personalities- namely sociopaths and psychotics and people who were borderline animal like with their disablities. I always assumed it was were the truely broken people were kept, not to mention the Blackgate inmates were being housed there as well, due to a fire at their facility.

Regardless, I can't really understand some poeple here. Aveline is too mannish...how the hell does that work? True, she's strong, loyal and doesn't look too bad naked, but you certainly saw the more tender side of her, notable with The Long Road and speaking to her after Leandra died (that convo was lovely.)

I do disagree with Isabela's outfit, mainly due to her weird boob size and the fact her thighs were exposed; you have a hugeass artery in your thigh, punture that and you bleed to death really quickly. But it did suit her personality and fighting style; rouges are suppose to be the ninjas in the dark.

Armour can be sexy/femine, like Merril's armour she gets after romancing her. I love it, I find it very antestically pleasing and compliments her slender, willowy form without showing loads of skin, she looks attractive in that armour.

[Vandicus]

Russalka wrote...

Hmm, but was there ever as much discussion on BSN nitpicking on male companion appearance as much as there were those for female characters?

I recall a few dreadful threads about Morrigan and Isabela. Aveline gets called a man a lot.

I would argue that the nitpicking of female characters on BSN has more to do with feminism than the people who actually want to objectify women.

The OP seems to take what he perceives as would be a feminist stance(the feminist stance on clothing varies widely), in that he argues that characters like Jack or Isabella are objectified by their lack of clothing/revealing clothing. If it were not for this feminist line of thought bringing the very concept of objectification into question, the debate would not exist. Since there is not a corressponding ideal for males(males must be dressed this way or not dress this way in order that they aren't objectified), male characters and objectification is rarely discussed.