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.

Read carefully, Melissa: I described the skirt itself rather than the female character depicted as wearing it as skanky. I really suggest holding back on the urge to assign people "complexes."

What's problematic with this book cover is not the issue of women dressing in sexy clothes generally. It is that the purpose of this or almost any book (at least novel) cover is to entice readers. The cover makes the argument, as it were, that the sexualized portrayal of a female character is what makes the character and the book worthwhile -- and, with the back cover summary (also enticement), there's an evocation of violence against another female character. In fact, this image is not of a character at all but rather the most explicitly depersonalizating portrayal possible: the woman-as-corpse. This is total objectification. Woman-as-corpse is a step past damsel in distress.

This may very well be commentary on sexism in the video game industry. But being commentary is not mutually exclusive with also being the thing that is being commented upon. That is to say, she may be writinig a book exploring the themes of sexism in the video game industry but (at least) the marketing for her book is also participating, in the same exploitative way as the picture on facebook she was complaining about, in that same sexism.

 Manchu wrote:
Read carefully, Melissa: I described the skirt itself rather than the female character depicted as wearing it as skanky.

I do not choose to see a difference between these two, especially given society's long-standing tendency to judge women based off of how we dress.

"She dresses like a skank" carries the implication that "she is a skank". You can't really escape this. Hell I've done this myself, and usually regretted it afterwards because of the unfortunate implications.

 Manchu wrote:
Read carefully, Melissa: I described the skirt itself rather than the female character depicted as wearing it as skanky. I really suggest holding back on the urge to assign people "complexes."

What's problematic with this book cover is not the issue of women dressing in sexy clothes generally. It is that the purpose of this or almost any book (at least novel) cover is to entice readers. The cover makes the argument, as it were, that the sexualized portrayal of a female character is what makes the character and the book worthwhile -- and, with the back cover summary (also enticement), there's an evocation of violence against another female character. In fact, this image is not of a character at all but rather the most explicitly depersonalizating portrayal possible: the woman-as-corpse. This is total objectification. Woman-as-corpse is a step past damsel in distress.

This may very well be commentary on sexism in the video game industry. But being commentary is not mutually exclusive with also being the thing that is being commented upon. That is to say, she may be writinig a book exploring the themes of sexism in the video game industry but (at least) the marketing for her book is also participating, in the same exploitative way as the picture on facebook she was complaining about, in that same sexism.

Maybe it's intended to be ironic? Also, what do you mean with "woman as a corpse" I'm not familiar with this term? Personally, I don't think women being sexualized is necessarily sexist it depends on the context.

 Melissia wrote:
I do not choose to see a difference between these two, especially given society's long-standing tendency to judge women based off of how we dress.

Then you do not choose to have the conversation to hand. Rather, you choose to have a strawman conversation.

Now, if you'd like to have this conversation, rather than insisting on mischaracterizing my posts, it would certainly be appropriate to inquire as to the distinction I am drawing.

The distinction is as between the motive of the character wearing the skirt and the motives of the people who create and observe the image. Nothing about the rest of the cover, front or back, indicates why the character would be wearing a skirt that short. From the image alone, we can't know what is in that character's mind regarding the skirt. But we can make reasonable arguments regarding why the people who created that image put her in a short skirt.

He might be referring to one of these:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisposableWoman

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/StuffedIntoTheFridge

 Manchu wrote:
But we can make reasonable arguments regarding why the people who created that image put her in a short skirt.

That does not excuse the label or the insinuation that was in your post-- whether you put it there intentionally or otherwise it's still there, just like the likely intention of the artist of said cover art.

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Read carefully, Melissa: I described the skirt itself rather than the female character depicted as wearing it as skanky.

I do not choose to see a difference between these two, especially given society's long-standing tendency to judge women based off of how we dress.

"She dresses like a skank" carries the implication that "she is a skank". You can't really escape this. Hell I've done this myself, and usually regretted it afterwards because of the unfortunate implications.

I don't believe in terms like skank, whore, slut, etc as it implies that woman dressing in skimpy clothes and/or have very active sex lives is not OK especially when the male equivalents tend to looked in a more positive light with terms like lady's man, player, undercover guy, etc (although

there's a few negative one's for men as well such as man-whore, douche, etc). Skank, whore, slut, etc don't even really work as insult as there's the implication that you're sexually attractive to a lot of people which imo is a good thing.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Maybe it's intended to be ironic?

I don't see any hint of irony.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Also, what do you mean with "woman as a corpse" I'm not familiar with this term?

It's a term I'm using to describe the complete end of personhood in a female character. A corpse is an object, undead themes aside. It has zero agency.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Personally, I don't think women being sexualized is necessarily sexist it depends on the context.

Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.

 Manchu wrote:
Then you do not choose to have the conversation to hand. Rather, you choose to have a strawman conversation.

Now, if you'd like to have this conversation, rather than insisting on mischaracterizing my posts, it would certainly be appropriate to inquire as to the distinction I am drawing.

The distinction is as between the motive of the character wearing the skirt and the motives of the people who create and observe the image. Nothing about the rest of the cover, front or back, indicates why the character would be wearing a skirt that short. From the image alone, we can't know what is in that character's mind regarding the skirt. But we can make reasonable arguments regarding why the people who created that image put her in a short skirt.

Yeah I misread some parts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Maybe it's intended to be ironic?

I don't see any hint of irony.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Also, what do you mean with "woman as a corpse" I'm not familiar with this term?

It's a term I'm using to describe the complete end of personhood in a female character. A corpse is an object, undead themes aside. It has zero agency.

 Cheesecat wrote:
Personally, I don't think women being sexualized is necessarily sexist it depends on the context.

Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.

Oh OK, thanks for the clarifications.

 Melissia wrote:
Is there a point to your incoherent rambling or are you just trying to win by verbosity alone?

Extrapolating my own experiences in other games, along with numerous, numerous reports from other female gamers, combined with the evidence in the link I provided certainly gives better proof than anything you can try to provide to the contrary.

Especially when considered within the context of real-world statistics on how women are far, FAR more likely to be sexually assaulted or domestically abused than men, and the historical dominance of men in societies across the globe-- where men often practiced exclusionary tactics and held that they had a right or even duty to commit violence against women. Oftentimes codified in to law.

This is just hilarious.

You are dead serious about putting your very own, personal, subjective experience over scientific results?

That's just about as irrational as a human being can get and it finally proves to everyone here that you deny cognitive reasoning on purpose and prefer to mindlessly ramble about your own ideas.. In fact, you are the textbook definition of a dogmatic.

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
But we can make reasonable arguments regarding why the people who created that image put her in a short skirt.

That does not excuse the label or the insinuation that was in your post-- whether you put it there intentionally or otherwise it's still there, just like the likely intention of the artist of said cover art.

The label "skanky" does not require excusing as far as I can tell. Why do you think otherwise. And the "insinuation" (presumably that the character is a skank because she's wearing a skanky skirt) exists in your post rather than mine. As I already pointed out, and you continue to ignore to pursue your strawman, I distinguished between an article of clothing and the character wearing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
there's the implication that you're sexually attractive to a lot of people

Not really. All those words refer to is how readily the woman will have sex or sexual contact with people. No compliment whatsoever is necessarily implied by those slurs.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


You are wrong.

A scientist can of course identify a class of objects, take a representative sample to examine, and make assumptions that can be generalized to the rest of that class. It is a very normal concept.

In order to make your argument correct, it is necessary to assume that Halo 3 is not typical of online shooting games, which clearly is an absolutely absurd idea.

Melissia was clearly referring to video games in general. We're not talking of clusters here, she used 1 very specific example to use it as an argument for the entirety of video games - which is wrong by all means of objective research on any issue.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Read carefully, Melissa: I described the skirt itself rather than the female character depicted as wearing it as skanky.

I do not choose to see a difference between these two, especially given society's long-standing tendency to judge women based off of how we dress.

"She dresses like a skank" carries the implication that "she is a skank". You can't really escape this. Hell I've done this myself, and usually regretted it afterwards because of the unfortunate implications.

Wrong. As Manchu already stated, if someone says "She looks like a skank", it's you making the assumption that he also meant that she is a skank. Which he never said at all.

 Manchu wrote:
The label "skanky" does not require excusing as far as I can tell. Why do you think otherwise.

It is a highly negative term used for the sole purpose of insulting women for being sexually liberated and not conforming to the impossible standards of society. THAT is why it needs to be excused.

To be more specific, "Skank" is an insult commonly delivered to women who fail to live up to the "Madonna" side of the Madonna-Whore complex. An insult leveled at women who are too scantily clad-- be it showing an ankle, or being in a miniskirt and tube top, depending on the particular local culture you're speaking of. It refers to sleaziness, promiscuity, and so on, and is just in general an unpleasant term that should be avoided in serious conversation.

Thus my reference to said complex and why I am NOT backing down in objecting to your use of it.

 Manchu wrote:
And the "insinuation" (presumably that the character is a skank because she's wearing a skanky skirt) exists in your post rather than mine.

No, the insinuation existed in your post. You may not have intended such, but it's there regardless of intent.

 Melissia wrote:
Why do you think otherwise.It is a highly negative term used for the sole purpose of insulting women for being sexually liberated and not conforming to the impossible standards of society. THAT is why it needs to be excused.

Sexually liberated as in "having multiple loose sexual relationships" and thus being in general "open to sexuality"? A person dressing like a person that is purposefully attractive males...not a tough relation to make.

 Sigvatr wrote:
As Manchu already stated, if someone says "She looks like a skank"

TBF, I never said she looked like a skank. I said the skirt in which the person who made the image dressed the character in was skanky.

 Melissia wrote:
It is a highly negative term used for the sole purpose of insulting women for being sexually liberated and not conforming to the impossible standards of society.

I agree with you excluding the red part. The word "skanky" does not necessarily critique sexual liberation. My own usage is a good example of that: I am not criticizing the image for showing a sexually liberated woman; rather I am criticizing the image for showing a woman who is subject to sexism.

 Melissia wrote:
No, the insinuation existed in your post. You may not have intended such, but it's there regardless of intent.

The insinuation existed in my post as you read it. It was not there when I wrote it nor is it there when other people read it. I'm not saying it's not there -- but it being there is not a matter of my agency.

I agree with Melissia. I don't think you can say "she's wearing a slutty/skanky/whatever skirt" without the implication being on the character of the wearer. I mean, come on. It's a skirt. It can't be promiscuous. The adjective is obviously meant to end up on the wearer.

 Manchu wrote:
[TBF, I never said she looked like a skank. I said the skirt in which the person who made the image dressed the character in was skanky.

My apologies then. To you. That makes it even worse as it's one step before "She looks like a skank". By referring to the piece of clothing, the term generally refers to the clothing typically used by women who are purposefully trying to attract men. There are women doing so for a living. Wearing "skanky" clothes.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I agree with Melissia. I don't think you can say "she's wearing a slutty/skanky/whatever skirt" without the implication being on the character of the wearer. I mean, come on. It's a skirt. It can't be promiscuous. The adjective is obviously meant to end up on the wearer.

You don't refer to the skirt's characteristic, you refer to it being worn by a certain type of woman if you call it "skanky". And again: it's you making the conclusion. If someone says "That makes her look like a skank", you make a verdict on her clothing or her way of dressing, not on her personality. If you feel offended by such a sentence, you made the assumption that the speaker wanted to say that you were a skank - which is not true.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I mean, come on. It's a skirt. It can't be promiscuous. The adjective is obviously meant to end up on the wearer.

The adjective also ends up on the observer. That's the point. The skirt cannot be promiscuous and, as I mentioned, we cannot judge what the character thinks about the skirt because we have no information to inform such a judgment. But we do have information to inform a judgement about what purpose a sexualized female image on the cover of a book serves.

 Manchu wrote:
I said the skirt in which the person who made the image dressed the character in was skanky.

I think you may be missing the point-- the thing is, "she dresses like a skank" is no less an insult than "she is a skank". To say it another way-- how would you moderate someone looking at cosplay images and saying "she's dressed like a slut/whore"?

 Manchu wrote:
I agree with you excluding the red part. The word "skanky" does not necessarily critique sexual liberation.

Yes it does. It is explicitly a sexual insult, much like "slut" or "whore". Indeed, "slutty" and "skanky" as adjectives are extremely similar, if not the exact same.

 Manchu wrote:
I am not criticizing the image for showing a sexually liberated woman; rather I am criticizing the image for showing a woman who is subject to sexism.

That's like criticizing racism by calling a black guy a [racial expletive].

 Manchu wrote:
I'm not saying it's not there -- but it being there is not a matter of my agency.

We are in a thread talking about the subconscious, unintentional sexism of the video game industry in its portrayal of women.

Or perhaps you have forgotten that we both of us have argued that it is not necessarily the intent of the industry to portray women as weak and lacking agency-- yet the result is still an industry with a history of objectifying women, even though some people in this thread do not see it as such?

I already stated that it was not your intent, and I understand it wasn't. But it certainly was the result of your post.

 Melissia wrote:
I said the skirt in which the person who made the image dressed the character in was skanky. I think you may be missing the point-- the thing is, "she dresses like a skank" is no less an insult than "she is a skank".

It is if you had a basic understanding of the English language -__-

 Melissia wrote:
I think you may be missing the point-- the thing is, "she dresses like a skank" is no less an insult than "she is a skank".

I think you may be missing the point -- I didn't say she dresses like a skank. I said she was dressed (by the person creating the image) in a skanky skirt. She has been put in a piece of clothing that sexualizes her for the observer. That sums up countering most of your other points, too.

 Melissia wrote:
both of us have argued that it is not necessarily the intent of the industry to portray women as weak and lacking agency-- yet the result is still an industry with a history of objectifying women, even though some people in this thread do not see it as such?

I am still arguing that, specifically with reference to the cover of a book by a woman who worked in the video game industry and who is critical of sexism in the video game industry. I'm not saying it's her intent to facilitate this sexism. But she is doing it -- even at the same time as apologizing for it.

Funny she doesn't mention Samus or the Metroid series.

 Polvilhovoador wrote:
Funny she doesn't mention Samus or the Metroid series.

Stay tuned for the her next vid.

 Manchu wrote:

 Melissia wrote:
I think you may be missing the point-- the thing is, "she dresses like a skank" is no less an insult than "she is a skank".

I think you may be missing the point -- I didn't say she dresses like a skank. I said she was dressed (by the person creating the image) in a skanky skirt.

This is very nitpicky and I don't necessarily agree the distinction is relevant. But I don't see this tangent going anywhere, so let's just agree to disagree and try to get back on topic.

 Polvilhovoador wrote:
Funny she doesn't mention Samus or the Metroid series.

It's an interesting point though...Samus despite being female never was an actual character as she never had a personality at all, at least not for the first few Metroid games, I don't know about the post SNES-era. In SSB, however, she suddenly was more portrayed as a sexy woman, zero suit leaving little room for creativity, revealing that she was your typical long blond hair / big boobs / dem curves character. Not talking about the short death animation in Super Metroid

To me, it somehow "demystified" her as a character. I wish they'd tried to breathe some life into her instead of just giving her big boobs.

 Manchu wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
there's the implication that you're sexually attractive to a lot of people

Not really. All those words refer to is how readily the woman will have sex or sexual contact with people. No compliment whatsoever is necessarily implied by those slurs.

I'm not totally sure about that, being sexually attractive to lots of people gives you the benefit of being more selective with your sexual partners, allows you to bed more prestigious people and having frequent sex is also supposed to be good for you health.

 Cheesecat wrote:

I'm not totally sure about that, being sexually attractive to lots of people gives you the benefit of being more selective with your sexual partners, allows you to bed more prestigious people and having frequent sex is also supposed to be good for you health.

You have to be careful though about certain people. Being openly sexual to the public also brings dangers.

 Manchu wrote:
Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.

So would sex work (prostitution, phone sex, strippers, porn, etc) be sexist or would this be an exception?

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.

So would sex work (prostitution, phone sex, strippers, porn, etc) be sexist or would this be an exception?

I don't think you can put prostitution and phones sex / strippers in the same drawer.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.

So would sex work (prostitution, phone sex, strippers, porn, etc) be sexist or would this be an exception?

I don't think you can put prostitution and phones sex / strippers in the same drawer.

I'm talking about sex workers which is anyone involved in the sex industry, I didn't make up the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_worker

 Melissia wrote:
But I don't see this tangent going anywhere

I think it's pretty important. Not the word skanky itself. I understand your objections to the specific word. But let's say "sexualizing" instead. This character is portrayed in a sexualizing skirt in order to entice customers. If we can't agree on that then there's no basis for any of the complaints about sexism in the video game industry or beyond.

And it does indeed bring up the issue of what about when actual women chose to wear sexualizing outfits. Are they sexualizing themselves -- and what makes that okay and not okay? I think that's a bit beyond our scope here; I only bring it up to say there is a big difference between female characters and actual women. Actual women have real agency, even if it is socially limited in gendered ways. Characters have no corresponding agency. They can be portrayed as exercising agency but they never have it themselves.

When a character wears sexualizing clothing, that decision is made by someone other than the character. It seems a little ridiculous to spell it out but this is important. When we ask why a female character is portrayed wearing sexualizing clothing, we are asking first and foremost about why someone else has chosen that for her -- and that is a question of context. The context of the book cover is enticement. It is to bait a transaction, an exchange of values, money for ____. Most obviously, it's money for a book. But what makes this book different from others such that you might consider buying it? Well, this book has a picture of a sexualized woman on the cover. The character is being sexualized in order to sell the book.

 Cheesecat wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Neither do I. But generally speaking sexualization as a means of marketing tending to objectification does strike me as obviously sexist.

So would sex work (prostitution, phone sex, strippers, porn, etc) be sexist or would this be an exception?

I'd say all of those occupations rely on sexist tendency to see women as means rather than ends.

 Cheesecat wrote:
being sexually attractive to lots of people

The mistake you've made again here is to assume that being called a slut, whore, skank, etc, implies one is attractive. Again, it does not.