Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[smjjames]

Your link is a bit messed up sheb. Well, not the link itself, just the tag.

Anyways, I never really noticed the 'boob armor'. If anything though, it looks more like an oddly designed chestplate.

[wierd]

Pectoral muscles are a thing.

You will find "Boob armor" in antiquity too. "Hammered to fit" bronze breast plates look quite boobly.

Spoiler:  See my shiny metal man nipples!? (click to show/hide)

[Neonivek]

Ohhh it gets BETTER when you hear what men actually had to do to fit into that armor or when some of them actually clamped onto the man's nipples (or something like that).

Such as shave (though in all fairness I think it was sexy to be hairy?)

[smjjames]

Ohhh it gets BETTER when you hear what men actually had to do to fit into that armor or when some of them actually clamped onto the man's nipples (or something like that).

Such as shave (though in all fairness I think it was sexy to be hairy?)

@ the shaving stuff: It depends on the culture, but there may have been pratical reasons as far as the armor goes.

[wierd]

Personally though, the whole "Empowered" / "Advantaged" thing is a cop out. The basic argument (as I see it anyway) goes like this:

Women are disadvantaged, and men are advantaged.
As such, women will not have any advantage.
As such, women dont try to have any advantage.
Consequence: Women are disadvantaged (Repeat until you throw up)

My retort to this is that women need to seek advantage if they are to become advantaged. These days, physical upper body strength has shit-little to do with financial or intellectual success. There is no physiological foundation for any kind of gender specific advantage in that context. 

The usual rebuttle I get from that, is that "Being assertive, powerful, and self-confident, and demanding proper treatment is not feminine".

That changes the argument into:

Women are disadvantaged, because women are women.
Women stop being women when they choose to stop being disadvantaged.

That is full of so much fucked-up-ness that I dont even. The concept of femininity is culturally malleable.  In the 1700s, the ideal of female beauty in europe was to be a bit on the chunky side.  These days we have spaghetti stick super models that suffer from genuinely pathological body image issues as the ideal.  What is behaviourally considered feminine has also changed considerably over that period of time.  The "Not feminine!" argument is bullshit. It incorrectly ascribes the source of femininity.  Something is "Feminine" because it is associated with women.  Women are not women because they associate with 'Feminine" things.  As the women change, what is considered feminine will also change.

The real reason that "Glass ceilings" on wages, that "good old boys clubs" in academia and finance, and other "Advantage" vanguards that get trumpeted exist, is because women allow them to, by swallowing the swill that "Rocking the boat is unladylike".

Women decide what is ladylike. Not men.  There's your empowerment. 

[Arx]

This thread is all about women seeking advantage, though.

[wierd]

Which is PRECISELY why the "Advantage" argument is bullshit. 

Women ARE seeking advantage, pay scales ARE normalizing.

The loudest proclaimers of "The patriarchy" are females, who for whatever reason, want to assert that this is untrue, and that they are delicate flowers being walked on. (Nevermind that even men get walked on, when they allow others to walk on them. The fight to not be walked on is continual, and not specific to women.)

[Phmcw]

This thread is all about women seeking advantage, though.

Nope it's not, it's about getting actual women and more genreally character and good writing in videogames.

Gamers aren't dead, they never wanted to play a super soldier everygames in the first place, and there is a lack of diversity in characters.

There is too many simplistic and boring characters and stories of guy A that seek vengence for reason x, tracked guy who saved the world from the evil that threathen him, and super soldier that have to stop the threath of z.

[Arx]

This thread is all about women seeking advantage, though.

Nope it's not, it's about getting actual women and more genreally character and good writing in videogames.

I would say getting actual women into games is an advantage for women, relative to their previous status.

I don't have a great desire to now get into a meta-argument over what we're arguing about, though.

[Neonivek]

This thread is all about women seeking advantage, though.

Well no, this thread is an exploration of the themes, concepts, issues, and celebration of females in videogames.

We just get very stuck on sexism because that is what a lot of people are passionate about.

Stuff

Here is kind of the thing. Men and women are not separate entities.

Likewise men and women do not have hive minds that can sort of work together either separately (The typical Male Hive mind idea) or together.

Neither men nor women have exclusive ability to redefine what collectively together they define themselves as.

I do like that you acknowledge that women do have power and can change society (It isn't men against women)... Because one of the things I feel a lot of people get wrong is this idea that women are just so completely disempowered and without a voice.

But I do disagree that it is because "Women let themselves be taken advantage of".

I mean SURE yes, one could make an argument that women as a whole do not take enough ownership of their lives, wellbeing, and the future, afterall only a small percent of women advocate women's rights one COULD craft that argument... But that isn't what I get from what you say.

Which is PRECISELY why the "Advantage" argument is bullshit. 

Women ARE seeking advantage, pay scales ARE normalizing.

The loudest proclaimers of "The patriarchy" are females, who for whatever reason, want to assert that this is untrue, and that they are delicate flowers being walked on. (Nevermind that even men get walked on, when they allow others to walk on them. The fight to not be walked on is continual, and not specific to women.)

Ok, lets just say women are seeking advantage and there is absolutely no question of that.

The current idea is that women should try to get any leg up or advantage they can... then once things are balanced... adjust.

It isn't a bad concept and if we ever do create a law that unfairly advantages women or unjustly disadvantages men we can just... get rid of it. Our society is actually doing a decent job at recognizing when we have done this.

The only issue with "seeking advantage" is when there is this idea that it justifies... everything. Yet that is just a problem with individual people's idea of "Ends justifies the means". For example I unfathomably despise people who rewrite history books or facts to suit their political agenda (Dang it Christopher Columbus!)

---

Lets not get TOO sidetracked and bring this back to games.

[wierd]

PHMCW: I can agree to that.  The usual argument tendered here though, is that "Videogames are escapist fantasy" and so, "Should appeal to fantastical ego-inflation"

I can see a genre of gameplay being based on that-- but not all video games in general.  To me, the purpose of a video game is to be entertaining and enjoyable.  The "How" of that entertainment is purposefully left vague, as there are, as the saying goes, "Different strokes, for different folks"

Some people like the "I was created in a lab, specifically to fight the dreaded space terror of X!" super solider storyline,  Others don't.

The sin there, is in blandly asserting one way or the other that this is right or wrong.

Neonivek:

I look at it from say, the "Computer science female deficit".   There is no physiological reason why women are not more into computer science.  In fact, historically, computers were very much a "Female" thing.  The era of Grace Hooper for instance, had many female programmers of high reputation and skill.  We can break down some of the reasons tendered why this divide exists:

1) Many female advocates say that the reason that this divide exists, is because of endemic sexism in academia and the workplace. I have worked in IT, and I have worked in other vocations that have a shift in the other direction. (Nursing).  I dont see any particular divide on this front. More, I see this argument as a vocal minority who takes offense to everything, and complains loudly about it.

2) Many academics professors say that there is a major divide, because there is simply a lack of interest by female students in the subject matter. There simply isnt enough enrollment in the curriculum by female students.   Why?

I would say that the cultural image of "Female" (Or rather, the nebulous and malleable public conception of femininity) currently considers computers, math, engineering, and sciences as "Nerdy", and "Not sexy", and thus "Not for sexy women to do".

As I pointed out, women decide what is feminine. Not men. 

Women arent going into STEM vocations, because women have chosen not to do so, collectively.

[Neonivek]

The sin there, is in blandly asserting one way or the other that this is right or wrong.

Honestly... THIS right here is the entire argument to this entire thread... To just females in games almost.

Which is why I am always so desperate to open up discussions that dive deep into this.

I KNOW there is a huge problem with women being over sexualized and objectified in videogames.

But I want to know about Videogames and female sexuality, that is a topic I feel is under-discussed.

Yes, I know female protagonists are often shallow and terrible and can sometimes feel like they are made for men.

But I'd like to talk about what makes a good female protagonist who feels uniquely female.

I would LOVE to talk about games that are made for women.

Sure women are often the victims in videogames.

But I'd like to talk about alternatives that don't eliminate the concept of victimhood.

Because everytime you look at "What women want out of games" it isn't anything earth shattering. They want more and better. What do guys want? More and better. Since HECK if they wanted something "else" they wouldn't be playing videogames or they would just want an different type of videogame.

This thread is SOO painful because we can never get beyond "This is wrong". But this topic is so fascinating and so important for everyone, men and women... and just black and white moralization is so dull and unhelpful to this discussion.

[wierd]

Indeed.  I DO however, feel that marketing moguls over-emphasize certain genre because of their profitability, which "Poisons the well".

Imagine if the only thing you could find in modern bookstores were dime-store-pulp-romance novels, because publishers have a "Business model", and "Dime store romances sell really well!"

You REALLY want some hard scifi, like classic Asimov flavor, but modern--- But you JUST CANT FIND IT.  You may end up harboring a dislike for dime store romance novels, and eventually consider them as less valuable than toilet paper. 

The problem happens when we allow these personal grudges to get the better of us.  Just because we dont like a certain, "Highly popular" genre, does not mean that the genre shouldnt exist.  It just means that the publishers should stop trying to shape the market and dictate based on availability.

Likewise, the actions of these publishers and media moguls can create a false image;  "Modern books are all about supernatural love affairs!"  etc. 

These are the same kinds of arguments brought up against modern gaming. "Modern games are all about fantastical ego-inflation with terrible female protagonists!"  Yadda, yadda.

No, there is just an over-emphasis of such genre, because certain people have decided that they are more profitable than other, "Less mainstream" genre, and they are crowding out the shelf space.

At some point, the market engineering practices of these publishers completely subsumes the actual drives, desires, and interests of the consumer.  I'd say that this is one of the ACTUAL problems in the game industry.

[Sheo]

My sincere two cents on the issue as a whole:

If I'm a game creator and I decide my game is gonna have women in skimpy clothing, I should have the right to do so, and people should be able to criticize my choice with their wallet. Whether this is prejudicial or not should not be judged by an organization such as the government or Steam - bans are reprehensible in an age you can, legally, purchase Mein Kampf down your street.

A person's mind is their own.

[wierd]

I agree with you. Unfettered availability of all genres is the only way to ensure that such variety exists;

As I pointed out above, when there is an intrinsic bias by an industry or PR group, it distorts the public view of the good.


Contrived example:  What if the only things you could buy in blue were ladies clothing items?  No, your blue jeans are not on the shelves. You have black jeans, or some other color instead.   Your favorite color is blue.  You REALLY wish you could get a nice navy blue T-shirt, but you cant. You can only get navy blue blouses, Dresses, etc.

Eventually, the public conciousness may come to conclude that blue is a lady's color, since all blue items are lady's clothing.  The reason for this is entirely because the clothing makers have engineered it to be so-- but that's not important. The public concensus on the matter has formed, and the market has been manipulated.

The same thing happens with media.  When things are allowed to just succeed or fail based on their own merits, and not because of concerted media manipulaition by PR firms, backroom deals, and the like, then things that society considers unfavorable will end up on dusty, disused shelves.  It self-regulates.

If people find depictions of your female protagonist as being tasteless, vapid, flat, and genuinely unappealing-- they wont buy your game.

When they have the choice between your game, (with the vapid, hollow, and unappealing female protagonist) and some other genre that they despise even more, they will buy your game, and buy lots of it.

It is this latter effect that game publishers bank on. 

Take for instance, the backlash of Kane and Lynch--  The PR drones pushed out paid for editorials, game reviews, and the like that spun the game in a direction completely different from what the game actually was--  and actively sued game review companies that voiced their true opinions.  The consequence? A game that wasnt what people thought it was, sold millions of units early on.  A big win for the publisher.

Then you have the "All blue clothes are women's clothing" issue.  Some years are "Years of RTS", and others are "Years of online multiplay FPS".  In those years, ALL of the publishers will produce very similar games, as they all try to copy each other--- leaving other genres out in the cold.  Some of these trends persist for several years later, especially when there are "Lucrative franchises" to milk.

Publishers are after one thing, and one thing only--- The consumer's money.

THe consumer, on the other hand, is after a very varied and discerning buffet of items.

The publisher has interest in giving the consumer a McDonald's menu. This greatly upsets the problem, since big publishers use their financial might to kill off and prevent upstart publishers and game houses with genuinely new and invigorating content.