Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Spoiler:

Six pack.

Also this:

Spoiler:

Your argument is invalid. Please, let me know if you want another example.

There being exceptions does not make my argument invalid. Also, I wouldn't call Lelith objectified... as for Storm, she IS intended to be a strong character, not a weak one, and most of the time (depending onthe writer) she is not really deeply objectified.

Ladies and gentlemen, the point in the thread where the definition of objectification that has been constant throughout the thread is thrown aside.

All the talk of realism in our fantasy/sci-fi being negated by scantily clad women, and suddenly fighting world-destroying evil super mutants in skin tight spandex is okely-dokely.

Monster Rain wrote:All the talk of realism in our fantasy/sci-fi being negated by scantily clad women, and suddenly fighting world-destroying evil super mutants in skin tight spandex is okely-dokely.

Every time someone makes this "nescio quid est realismus" argument, they fail to acknowledge the difference between "realism" and "believability". Perhaps even "verisimilitude" fits here as well.

Absolutionis wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:All the talk of realism in our fantasy/sci-fi being negated by scantily clad women, and suddenly fighting world-destroying evil super mutants in skin tight spandex is okely-dokely.

Every time someone makes this "nescio quid est realismus" argument, they fail to acknowledge the difference between "realism" and "believability". Perhaps even "verisimilitude" fits here as well.

Big words. Me no comprende.

I shoved "I don't know what realism is" into Google Translate.

That being said, realism =/= believability. Please don't confuse the two.

Every time someone makes this "nescio quid est realismus" argument, they fail to acknowledge the difference between "realism" and "believability". Perhaps even "verisimilitude" fits here as well.

Indeed.

There's nothing "suddenly" about it. Yes, I hold fantasy fiction and science fiction to a different standard than superhero fiction. I also hold fantasy fiction to a different standard than science fiction. What is believable and enjoyable in one is not necessarily believable and enjoyablein in another.

In superhero fiction spandex-clad badasses flying around sending blasts of raw "energy" from their palms is pretty much expected. Someone doing that in a sci-fi story would be just plain off-putting, even if you got rid f the spandex and put her in a space suit it would still be weird at best. You'd expect them to fly around with a jet pack rather tahn under their own power, and use a laser rifle or something instead of blasting from their bare hands. A mage might be able to get by with it, but mages usually aren't depicted as doing such unless they're world-destroyingly powerful, and frankly that kind of character is pretty boring most of the time in a fantasy setting anyway. But a mage riding on a dragon blasting lightning from their fingertips at the miserable evil minions below? AWESOME. That put in a science fiction setting? Eeeeeeeh... maybe if it was a robotic or cyborg dragon and the "mage" was an engineer with a plasma cannon...

Dr. Douchebag wrote:You don't see the morality of this practice come into question with something like, say, a sex-driven 'vampire' flick (Twilight) that targets a female audience,

To be fair, there's the bigger issue with that franchise, in that the promotion of paedophilia and grooming is fine if there is eye candy for the women...

Ah, so the standard is exactly as arbitrary and inconsistent as I originally thought.

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Spoiler:

Six pack.

Also this:

Spoiler:

Your argument is invalid. Please, let me know if you want another example.

There being exceptions does not make my argument invalid. Also, I wouldn't call Lelith objectified... as for Storm, she IS intended to be a strong character, not a weak one, and most of the time (depending onthe writer) she is not really deeply objectified.

So wait, a male character being "strong" is "objectifying" him, but a female character being "strong" is not? I'm sorry but it's getting very confusing what you've been trying to say.

Dracheous wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:

Spoiler:

Six pack.

Also this:

Spoiler:

Your argument is invalid. Please, let me know if you want another example.

There being exceptions does not make my argument invalid. Also, I wouldn't call Lelith objectified... as for Storm, she IS intended to be a strong character, not a weak one, and most of the time (depending onthe writer) she is not really deeply objectified.

So wait, a male character being "strong" is "objectifying" him, but a female character being "strong" is not? I'm sorry but it's getting very confusing what you've been trying to say.

If the male character is just strong, and anything else, then yes, he's being objectified. He's being reduced to a single concept. By you, if you can't see anything else while others can. By the creator of the character, if there isn't place for doubt.

Monster Rain wrote:Ah, so the standard is exactly as arbitrary and inconsistent as I originally thought.

Totally!

Another thought is that sexism as with many other isms only works one way. You apparently

cannot be sexist towards a man
cannot be racist towards the white
cannot be agist towards the young
cannot be motorist against a pedestrian

LOL

Toast36 wrote:cannot be sexist towards a man
cannot be racist towards the white
cannot be agist towards the young
cannot be motorist against a pedestrian

Ah yes, you don't like what I have to say therefor you make gak up and claim I beleive that instead.

Toast36 wrote:Another thought is that sexism as with many other isms only works one way. You apparently

cannot be sexist towards a man
cannot be racist towards the white
cannot be agist towards the young
cannot be motorist against a pedestrian

LOL

I think many people basically think along these lines unfortunately.

Melissia wrote:

Toast36 wrote:cannot be sexist towards a man
cannot be racist towards the white
cannot be agist towards the young
cannot be motorist against a pedestrian

Ah yes, you don't like what I have to say therefor you make gak up and claim I beleive that instead.

Hang on a minute, nothing of the sort. You can belive what the frick you want to I really don't care. I was just trying to lighten the mood in a thread that has got very very heavy. Or did you not notice the LOL at the end of my post?

Melissia wrote:

Toast36 wrote:cannot be sexist towards a man
cannot be racist towards the white
cannot be agist towards the young
cannot be motorist against a pedestrian

Ah yes, you don't like what I have to say therefor you make gak up and claim I beleive that instead.

I fail to see where he is mentioning you.

Toast36 wrote:Hang on a minute, nothing of the sort. You can belive what the frick you want to I really don't care. I was just trying to lighten the mood in a thread that has got very very heavy. Or did you not notice the LOL at the end of my post?

"Lightening the mood" by mocking and/or exaggerating another person's beliefs isn't exactly likely to work.

Brother SRM wrote:The fascination with painting models of naked women and the like just seems to be geeks being geeks. I don't really get the fascination; same with folks like Dr. Thunder and his infamous female Marine army. It's one of those things that oversteps a boundary and goes from a sane idea (I'll include a few women in my IG army!) and turns into something ridiculous (I'm going to make an all-female IG army, and they'll all be in bikinis and wearing ballgags!) and not many people stay anywhere near the line, unfortunately.

Proper female troops/officers should look exactly like the male members of the force, but then you would expect a female fantasy warrior to wear full suits of armor and not just chainmail bikinis either. In painting and the like showing off the human form and its intricacies is part of the process. Painting good human forms is a skill that takes some time to achieve. Showing a lot of skin on a wargaming miniature is just kind of pointless and converting those IG into weaing bikinis and ball gags may show some interesting converting abilities, it also marks you for the freak you really are. Definitely a real reason to go out and get a date for some people.

Skriker

Chainmail bikinis are good for fighting dragons. Dragons are well known to be stuck in a developmental stage similar to teenage boys, and wearing a bikini gives the female fighter the necessary time to dispatch the beast.

At least, that's the only explanation I've been able to come up with...

Skriker wrote:Proper female troops/officers should look exactly like the male members of the force,

No they shouldn't.

Male and female uniforms are often different in real life.

Redbeard wrote:Chainmail bikinis are good for fighting dragons. Dragons are well known to be stuck in a developmental stage similar to teenage boys, and wearing a bikini gives the female fighter the necessary time to dispatch the beast.

At least, that's the only explanation I've been able to come up with...

I thought it was because the rules of fantasy dictate that a woman in a fight will inevitably have her clothes ripped enough to expose tummy/legs/cleavage but not quite enough to fully expose private areas. Hence there is no point in wearing more armour as it's going to end up on the floor anyway.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

Skriker wrote:Proper female troops/officers should look exactly like the male members of the force,

No they shouldn't.

Male and female uniforms are often different in real life.

The IoM has to mass produce millions of uniforms. I don't think they bother to differentiate between field uniforms for men and uniforms for women as it would just complicate the logistics and almost certainly end up with a load of Catachans in g-strings, corsets and high heels.

A Town Called Malus wrote:The IoM has to mass produce millions of uniforms. I don't think they bother to differentiate between field uniforms for men and uniforms for women as it would just complicate the logistics and almost certainly end up with a load of Catachans in g-strings, corsets and high heels.

Imaginary logistical issues aside, the idea that male and female troops and officers should have identical uniforms has no basis in reality.

Skriker wrote:Proper female troops/officers should look exactly like the male members of the force, but then you would expect a female fantasy warrior to wear full suits of armor and not just chainmail bikinis either. In painting and the like showing off the human form and its intricacies is part of the process. Painting good human forms is a skill that takes some time to achieve. Showing a lot of skin on a wargaming miniature is just kind of pointless and converting those IG into weaing bikinis and ball gags may show some interesting converting abilities, it also marks you for the freak you really are. Definitely a real reason to go out and get a date for some people.

You realize this is just plain insulting towards the end and really ruins your integrity when you resort to calling those who so something you don't agree with a freak

Murdock129 wrote:

Skriker wrote:Proper female troops/officers should look exactly like the male members of the force, but then you would expect a female fantasy warrior to wear full suits of armor and not just chainmail bikinis either. In painting and the like showing off the human form and its intricacies is part of the process. Painting good human forms is a skill that takes some time to achieve. Showing a lot of skin on a wargaming miniature is just kind of pointless and converting those IG into weaing bikinis and ball gags may show some interesting converting abilities, it also marks you for the freak you really are. Definitely a real reason to go out and get a date for some people.

You realize this is just plain insulting towards the end and really ruins your integrity when you resort to calling those who so something you don't agree with a freak

Fair play though - converting mini's with a ball gag is a tad ..... out there.

Also, the differences between a male and a female uniform generally don't include having the female uniform show lots of skin. The differences ahve more to do with a difference in the shape of the body, IE, thinner shoulders, wider hips, different chest shape, etc.

Melissia wrote: different chest shape, etc.

You mean breasts?

Monster Rain wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:The IoM has to mass produce millions of uniforms. I don't think they bother to differentiate between field uniforms for men and uniforms for women as it would just complicate the logistics and almost certainly end up with a load of Catachans in g-strings, corsets and high heels.

Imaginary logistical issues aside, the idea that male and female troops and officers should have identical uniforms has no basis in reality.

Combats are almost always the same and there is a VERY real reason for this; its the same reason you do not salute in concert. Differences in combat uniforms suggest identification of significance and thus makes targets higher priority. Even gear load outs can suggest your importance over others. Someone running around with JUST armor and no magazines or various gear pouches is easily spotted as a VIP or as a person that is not generally supposed to be in that particular situation outside the wire. For me it was the 9 ft radio whip off my back that would make me a bigger target than my group I'd generally be working with.

Where uniforms have often differed has been dress uniform; but you'll notice one thing, the Tunics are ALWAYS the same ((except for cut to allow for breast)). Insignia, awards, ribbons etc etc will always be placed the same regardless of gender. Tunic colour, pockets, buttons, have always been the same again regardless of gender. What does differ is often the headgear or leg wear. Some forces still employ skirts for women in dress uniform, many no longer do this for parade form and go straight to dress pants as well. Often you'll find that the only significant differences in uniform is the type of headgear used. Canadian Naval seamen ((and women)) will have different hats and that's it, every other piece is the same example:

Melissia wrote:Also, the differences between a male and a female uniform generally don't include having the female uniform show lots of skin. The differences ahve more to do with a difference in the shape of the body, IE, thinner shoulders, wider hips, different chest shape, etc.

This is completely untrue; for the LONGEST time women were only permitted certain roles in forces, often this was medical fields, cooking, etc etc jobs that were far from the combat line. Because of this, uniforms often included skirts; why? Because womens legs are great to look at. Example of this? Just watch the evolution of the skirt from the 1920's to today. At one time, knees were a private thing, only for those successful men who bedded the woman in marriage to see. Now as long as I don't see your clit its all chill.

It really comes down to cultural background, overseas in some states if a woman's ankle is seen she will be stoned to death. In what would be considered the first world nations today female soldiers have always been "objectified" as you'd put it with uniforms that are cut to show off T&A; with a show of legs in the skirt. Many countries still do not allow women into Combat positions, and remain only allowing them in medical fields ((which is nurses in skirts)). Countries that DO allow women into combat positions today: Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, New Zealand, UK, as well as USA and Isreal.

However I know both the USA and Isreal still have positions that are men only. For Isreal for the longest time ((and only recently been changing)) women were not allowed into Close Combat situations; the reason behind this was not because of their ability to fight, but because the militants which the IDF deal with primarily will almost NEVER surrender to a woman. This is a very difficult tactial issue to deal with; prisoners = information, and it also means more danger for the female soldier because she literally HAS to kill the combatant to preserve her own safety.


Human history is quite full of its sexual flaw; either by total dominance of the female gender where they are treated like property ((ie no one sees you but me)) or as sexual creatures for which we look apon; everything from the damaging of feet in China to keep women short, to the relocating of internal organs via corsets of Europe, to the shortenin' of skirts of the America's. Sex has always been something to "view". What's an interesting thought is that when you look at tribes of people in warm climates that have less "civilization" in compare with the first worlds you'll notice that dress becomes less of an issue for most and only those of important get anything, where most of the women use only enough loin cloth to cover their vagina and breasts are left bear ((often this is only to help prevent dirt from getting into and irritating the genitalia for both men and women)).

Dracheous wrote:Where uniforms have often differed has been dress uniform; but you'll notice one thing, the Tunics are ALWAYS the same ((except for cut to allow for breast)). Insignia, awards, ribbons etc etc will always be placed the same regardless of gender.

Umm, no actually. Look closely at male and female dress uniforms. US Marine Dress Blues are a good example.

The "tunics", as you put it, are often different. "Neck Tab" is the key phrase here.

Behold:

Dracheous wrote:This is completely untrue

No it isn't, as I was referring to women who served on the front lines, not to noncombat roles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Redbeard wrote:

Melissia wrote: different chest shape, etc.

You mean breasts?

That is a part of the chest, yes. But it's not JUST breasts, even if that's a part of the body that's often focused on. The ribcage of a man is often wider than a woman, for example, so that also adds to the difference in shape.


The shoulders are probably the most important part though. Improperly distributing weight on one's shoulders can lead to vastly decreased performance-- something optimized for a man's shoulders is not going to be anywhere NEAR as good for a woman, leading to back pains, shoulder and arm soreness, improper posture, the like... in fact I would go so far as to say that most of the "women are somewhat more inclined to become injured" in the military is actually due to equipment not being designed for women.

Melissia wrote:
The shoulders are probably the most important part though. Improperly distributing weight on one's shoulders can lead to vastly decreased performance-- something optimized for a man's shoulders is not going to be anywhere NEAR as good for a woman, leading to back pains, shoulder and arm soreness, improper posture, the like... in fact I would go so far as to say that most of the "women are somewhat more inclined to become injured" in the military is actually due to equipment not being designed for women.

I don't know about that. Due to the increased angle at the knee, due to women's wider hips, women are more likely to suffer knee and ankle injuries while running, especially changing directions. This has been reported and discussed in several sports forums as it relates to women's soccer and basketball, without any extra equipment being involved.

Redbeard wrote:

Melissia wrote:The shoulders are probably the most important part though. Improperly distributing weight on one's shoulders can lead to vastly decreased performance-- something optimized for a man's shoulders is not going to be anywhere NEAR as good for a woman, leading to back pains, shoulder and arm soreness, improper posture, the like... in fact I would go so far as to say that most of the "women are somewhat more inclined to become injured" in the military is actually due to equipment not being designed for women.

I don't know about that. Due to the increased angle at the knee, due to women's wider hips, women are more likely to suffer knee and ankle injuries while running, especially changing directions. This has been reported and discussed in several sports forums as it relates to women's soccer and basketball, without any extra equipment being involved.

I said most of the problem, not all.

And the strains of being a soldier are quite a bit different than a basketball player, namely there's more endurance and upper body strength involved, making properly fitting equipment far more important.