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.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
Sometimes they are ill-researched. And misinformed on several subjects.

It seems that #3 doesn't just apply to defenses of sexism

Find me someone who has never been wrong, and I'll show you Jesus Christ (though why he's here and not Rapturing me off this rock I don't know).

But seriously. Is the irony of your response to that article this lost on you?

I don't trust Cracked to tell me whether I am sexist or not. If they are sociologists and people who have studied in depth yes. But I will not listen to people who do not cite their sources correctly and do not have a professional talking about it.

If you are going onto a sensitive topic you better pretty damn source it correctly.

I am glad Ash is carrying on his glorious crusade to:
- misrepresent my opinion
- still misrepresent my opinion even after I made it clear once again in reaction to his first post
- walk away like nothing happened

Yet again. I am not talking to you. I am talking to everyone else.

I understand your opinion. I am just ignoring it until I can make a proper response to it.

I think that the very nature of cosplay is empowering, Vorpal.

Bayonetta's depiction or classification has not been agreed upon. Some see her as a great example; others think that she is all that is wrong with the industry. Much ink has been spilt on this.

 AdeptSister wrote:
I think that the very nature of cosplay is empowering, Vorpal.

Bayonetta's depiction or classification has not been agreed upon. Some see her as a great example; others think that she is all that is wrong with the industry. Much ink has been spilt on this.

Which is what I agree with. People agree and some disagree. No ones sure what to feel. We can't really say she is the wrong or the right direction.

But I blame it on Americans being too afraid of talking about anything sexual.

Cosplay is empowering. I mean I know tons of girls that dress up as video game characters. Who are 'objectified' or outwardly 'sexual'. Because it is empowering for them to look and feel like that character. Because most of them are badasses.

 Chongara wrote:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:
I'm curious, would a woman cosplaying as Bayonnetta be sexist, or empowering?

On a scale of 1-10 how clever do you think this question is? I'll answer it, I just wanna get an idea of how good you think this is.

Play the ball, not the man. If you have an answer give it, you tease

 Asherian Command wrote:


I don't trust Cracked to tell me whether I am sexist or not.

And pray tell, where did they do that?

If they are sociologists and people who have studied in depth yes

By and large, I find Cracked's writers to be among the most articulate and informed writers I've ever found on a Blog. The biggest thing standing out in my mind that they messed up was when one of them tried arguing Sauron was the good guy but that at least sort of could make sense... Assuming the writer never read the Silmarillion.

But I will not listen to people who do not cite their sources correctly and do not have a professional talking about it.

<insert Bender laugh harder>

Pretty much every Cracked article, dealing with fact rather than opinion anyway, is littered with links (and almost always to academic, government, and mainstream news sources).

Sorry they didn't submit it in Chicago Tribune/MLA format (APA is stupid fyi ).

But yes. It does seem the irony is that lost on you.

The idea of "empowerment" has always irritated me. If you are wearing non-normal clothing, or cosplaying something like Kill la Kill, or Bayonetta, you are wearing it because you like the character and design, not to make some political statement.

And pray tell, where did they do that?

This is equal parts terrifying and disappointing. It's terrifying because some people genuinely think the only reason you wouldn't want women to walk around naked is because you don't want to jam your dick in them. They cannot conceive of any other reason for female clothing, because they've spent less time with women than the Eagle moon lander. It's amazing that such ridiculous sexism exists in someone who isn't stomping around killing wizards and slaying dragons.

Read more: http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-8-stupidest-defenses-against-accusations-sexism/#ixzz3I9lJ5pFG

they used the word You.

If you use the word you. I am talking to you. If someone for instance used neutral words then they are not talking to the audience they are being neutral.

This is called being picky. Through reasonable inference that means that they unwillingly called us sexist.

It happens and is why you need to check your bloody work.

By and large, I find Cracked's writers to be among the most articulate and informed writers I've ever found on a Blog. The biggest thing standing out in my mind that they messed up was when one of them tried arguing Sauron was the good guy but that at least sort of could make sense... Assuming the writer never read the Silmarillion.

Thats your opinion. I don't trust them because they always write only click bait articles, and sometimes they have completely wrong historical data.

<insert Bender laugh harder>

Pretty much every Cracked article, dealing with fact rather than opinion anyway, is littered with links (and almost always to academic, government, and mainstream news sources).

Sorry they didn't submit it in Chicago Tribune/MLA format (APA is stupid fyi ).

But yes. It does seem the irony is that lost on you.

Funny thing you need to follow citation formats. Its not that hard. If I have to for my papers write sources in everything, so should a 'blogger'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The idea of "empowerment" has always irritated me. If you are wearing non-normal clothing, or cosplaying something like Kill la Kill, or Bayonetta, you are wearing it because you like the character and design, not to make some political statement.

Empowerment is not a political statement. It makes you feel like a hero or like that hero.

They are not making a statement all the time, but it is about feeling powerful.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I understand your opinion. I am just ignoring it until I can make a proper response to it.

No, you do not understand it. Or else, you are purposefully regularly misrepresenting it, which is worse than not understanding it. Also curious about what you need but do not have yet to make a proper response to it.

 Lynata wrote:

Asherian Command wrote:she is showing off for herself

Without wanting to remove every single instance of a sexualised character design ... this justification is about as sensible as "I'm wearing this chainmail bikini because I don't want to sacrifice agility"

They can't hurt you if they can't touch you

 AdeptSister wrote:
I think that the very nature of cosplay is empowering, Vorpal.

Bayonetta's depiction or classification has not been agreed upon. Some see her as a great example; others think that she is all that is wrong with the industry. Much ink has been spilt on this.

Thank you. That makes sense.

I'm just foreseeing (and not liking) a possible future where female cosplayers start getting shamed by both extremes.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I understand your opinion. I am just ignoring it until I can make a proper response to it.

No, you do not understand it. Or else, you are purposefully regularly misrepresenting it, which is worse than not understanding it. Also curious about what you need but do not have yet to make a proper response to it.

Your last sentence did not make much sense. Could you retype it?

Could you restate it in its entirety and reword it. So we can reach an agreement?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VorpalBunny74 wrote:

 AdeptSister wrote:
I think that the very nature of cosplay is empowering, Vorpal.

Bayonetta's depiction or classification has not been agreed upon. Some see her as a great example; others think that she is all that is wrong with the industry. Much ink has been spilt on this.

Thank you. That makes sense.

I'm just foreseeing (and not liking) a possible future where female cosplayers start getting shamed by both extremes.

That is happening.

We got two feminists. Lets call one Social Fem and the other Pos Fem.

Social Fem finds it unacceptable that women dress up for cosplay saying that cosplay is specifically targeting men.

Pos Fem disagrees and finds it totally acceptable for a woman to show off and to dress up however they choose.

I mean this is the states we have arguments about what a woman should do during abortion. And someone argue it is their choice and not the mothers.

 Asherian Command wrote:
If you use the word you. I am talking to you. If someone for instance used neutral words then they are not talking to the audience they are being neutral.

And #5, and you're still not getting the irony.

click bait articles

This phrase means nothing beyond "I dislike this article's subject matter." All articles are click bait. It's why they're there. For you to click on them. Not much point to writing an article on the internet if no one is going to click the link.

and sometimes they have completely wrong historical data.

Yeah. Calling you on that. Their historical articles are some of their best, and they get their material very very right. I've read through the entire list and found no glaring errors (a few minor but when I say minor I mean minor).

Though, they seem to have a serious hard on for dragging Thomas Edison through the mud, even more so than most people who point out Edison was a tool.

Funny thing you need to follow citation formats. Its not that hard. If I have to for my papers write sources in everything, so should a 'blogger'

.

And as with the dictionary, the person demanding accurate citation is usually the one who actually doesn't care about citation, and simply wants to find silly reasons to ignore something. On the internet, a hyperlink is just as good if not better than an in line citation because it lets you go straight to the source and see what it says.

 LordofHats wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
If you use the word you. I am talking to you. If someone for instance used neutral words then they are not talking to the audience they are being neutral.

And #5, and you're still not getting the irony.

click bait articles

This phrase means nothing beyond "I dislike this article's subject matter." All articles are click bait. It's why they're there. For you to click on them. Not much point to writing an article on the internet if no one is going to click the link.

and sometimes they have completely wrong historical data.

Yeah. Calling you on that. Their historical articles are some of their best, and they get their material very very right. I've read through the entire list and found no glaring errors (a few minor but when I say minor I mean minor).

Though, they seem to have a serious hard on for dragging Thomas Edison through the mud, even more so than most people who point out Edison was a tool.

Funny thing you need to follow citation formats. Its not that hard. If I have to for my papers write sources in everything, so should a 'blogger'

.

And as with the dictionary, the person demanding accurate citation is usually the one who actually doesn't care about citation, and simply wants to find silly reasons to ignore something. On the internet, a hyperlink is just as good if not better than an in line citation because it lets you go straight to the source and see what it says.

If i don't get it. Explain it. Shesh. Do not be illusive.

I found one of their historical articles. And then I found out. Oh wait. This isn't slate. huh. Okay nevermind.

I withdraw my statement.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
They can't hurt you if they can't touch you

A chainmail bikini is not going to help with that. Like, at all.

If you want to see a good justification for sexy costumes, just look at how Lollipop Chainsaw or Faster Pussycat! Kill! Kill! do it. Yeah, the the best and easiest answer for sexy costumes is “because they are sexy”, rather than trying to come up with stupid, nonsensical explanations for them.

(Also, Asherian might to watch this movie if only for that one scene with Vegetable (his real name), for a good idea of something actually made for female gaze .)

 Asherian Command wrote:
Your last sentence did not make much sense. Could you retype it?

No.

 Asherian Command wrote:
We got two feminists. Lets call one Social Fem and the other Pos Fem.

Social Fem finds it unacceptable that women dress up for cosplay saying that cosplay is specifically targeting men.

Pos Fem disagrees and finds it totally acceptable for a woman to show off and to dress up however they choose.

I mean this is the states we have arguments about what a woman should do during abortion. And someone argue it is their choice and not the mothers.

What the hell are you talking about, again?

What the hell are you talking about, again?

It is a hypothetical situation that I was talking about where the is a difference of opinion on cosplay.

Aaaaand you somehow linked that to abortion. Which makes total sense, if you close down your brain.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Aaaaand you somehow linked that to abortion. Which makes total sense, if you close down your brain.

I am saying sex is a dirty word in the states.

They close down their brains whenever they talk about these issues. There are sometimes its just douh Just do this. the fact there is still discussions on cosplay or women sexuality is just stupid.

America the land of the 20 years behind on social issues. Yeahhhh


I find the fact that men. Straight men, have any word to speak about female sexuality and say they find it 'offensive'.

It is deeply sad to see that because it is just stupid.

If you wish to talk about the issues please do not discredit them.

I am not talking about anyone here.

just kind of angry we are having this conversation and saying that only one opinion is right.

 Asherian Command wrote:
I am saying sex is a dirty word in the states.

And I say that is nonsense, given all the tons of sexual stuff you can see even in mainstream US media.
I am talking stuff like this or that. And that is just the mainstream part. I am not even sending you Troma movies to the face yet - ever seen Poultrygeist ?

 Asherian Command wrote:
America the land of the 20 years behind on social issues.

Let me introduce you to Saudi Arabia, the land of two light years behind on social issues. And I do know that light years are a distance, not a time.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:
I am saying sex is a dirty word in the states.

And I say that is nonsense, given all the tons of sexual stuff you can see even in mainstream US media.
I am talking stuff like this or that. And that is just the mainstream part. I am not even sending you Troma movies to the face yet - ever seen Poultrygeist ?

 Asherian Command wrote:
America the land of the 20 years behind on social issues.

Let me introduce you to Saudi Arabia, the land of two light years behind on social issues. And I do know that light years are a distance, not a time.

Not a first world country

But If you actually live in the states. Anyone that is sexually active is shamed by the media. Just look up at the celebrities.

Plus i think this is a difference between living in the states and not living in the states.

America is pretty bad on sexual things. I remember reading this thing comparing the US movie rating system to those in Europe. Mass violence is tolerated in the US, but sexuality is punishe severly, being giving X or R ratings. It's almost exactly opposite with Europe.

In Warhammer 40k, the models for Battle Sisters' faces are purely hiseous. Some may disagree, but the faces look like Eldar!!!

40k models aren't really known for fine detail, but the sister's stuff hasn't been updated in years.

 Asherian Command wrote:
Not a first world country

Why? They are freaking rich, they have very good infrastructure and everything. The only thing on which they are extremely backward is social issues.

 Asherian Command wrote:
But If you actually live in the states. Anyone that is sexually active is shamed by the media. Just look up at the celebrities.

Can you name one, just one, U.S. celebrity above the age of 25 that is confirmed as NOT sexually active?
Everyone above that age is supposed to be sexually active, at least until they become too old. I know, because I am above 25 and not sexually active…

 Asherian Command wrote:
Plus i think this is a difference between living in the states and not living in the states.

Have you experienced not living in the U.S.?

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
America is pretty bad on sexual things. I remember reading this thing comparing the US movie rating system to those in Europe. Mass violence is tolerated in the US, but sexuality is punishe severly, being giving X or R ratings. It's almost exactly opposite with Europe.

It's somewhat strange how much America is stuck in Victorian Culture in that way. On the one hand, America loves it with "sex sells" and all that other nonsense. On the other hand, it's a big hush hush drama fest and oh boy if you show some skin and if there's sex wait to see that rating go to an R. Murdering dozens of people? Eh not so much. Actually it reminds me of at time where I went to Germany. Was flipping through the channels when I found one was a porn channel. Let's just say I was actually astonished that it was even on television (and the hotel wasn't even shabby).

Also get Sex Tape out of here. Right on out. That was not funny, it was awkward, and it made me more bitter than anything else. To the moon with it!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I remember reading this thing comparing the US movie rating system to those in Europe. Mass violence is tolerated in the US, but sexuality is punishe severly, being giving X or R ratings. It's almost exactly opposite with Europe.

Can you give references on that? Because apart from Kirikou getting problems to be broadcasted in the states, I cannot see anything like it.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I remember reading this thing comparing the US movie rating system to those in Europe. Mass violence is tolerated in the US, but sexuality is punishe severly, being giving X or R ratings. It's almost exactly opposite with Europe.

Can you give references on that? Because apart from Kirikou getting problems to be broadcasted in the states, I cannot see anything like it.

I forget the movie now...it may have been Platoon, or Apocalypse Now or something similar that I was watching on a German TV station while I was stationed there, and the channel edited out much of the actual violence that is seen in the "DVD" version in the US.

On the flip side, "Eyes Wide Shut" had to be heavily edited in order to receive an R rating in the States. It isn't a violent film, it's just that, apparently there was a TON of nudity of the type we "puritans" can not handle

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I remember reading this thing comparing the US movie rating system to those in Europe. Mass violence is tolerated in the US, but sexuality is punishe severly, being giving X or R ratings. It's almost exactly opposite with Europe.

Can you give references on that? Because apart from Kirikou getting problems to be broadcasted in the states, I cannot see anything like it.

I doubt it, but I'll look. It's just something I remeber reading, but I may have watched it. There was this one documentary on the US rating system I watched, This Film is Not Yet Rated, and it may have been in there.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
I forget the movie now...it may have been Platoon, or Apocalypse Now or something similar that I was watching on a German TV station while I was stationed there, and the channel edited out much of the actual violence that is seen in the "DVD" version in the US.

That is Germany, not Europe. I have no idea how Germany rates movies. Also, TV versus DVD is pretty damn different. I can find you a bunch of movies you will find on DVD, but pretty much never ever on mainstream TV channels .

Out of curiosity, I went to check how Baise-moi was rated in different countries. Apparently, it managed to be broadcast in the U.S., causing no controversy.

Asherian Command wrote:If you don't like a sex postitive woman who was designed by a woman. (Yep, the main character designer is infact, A WOMAN) Then do not tell me it is a bad thing to have a sex positive female protagonist who can basically kick anyones ass.

What?
I'm having trouble following what you are trying to argue here. I'm not supposed to tell you that it's a bad thing because I'm having an opinion?

CthuluIsSpy wrote:They can't hurt you if they can't touch you

Ironically enough, that is the in-game justification I'm argueing whenever there's a debate about night elf armour in Warcraft.
I'd still never use them as an example for character designs not intended to pander to a male audience, tho.

Asherian Command wrote:Empowerment is not a political statement. It makes you feel like a hero or like that hero.

They are not making a statement all the time, but it is about feeling powerful.

Which is why that comment made no sense in this context. Non-professional cosplayers dress up like their favourite characters because they like the characters, not any nudity. How much or how little they wear does not factor into it and is, at best, something that is considered solely when comparing it to their personal comfort level in regards to how far they'd go for an accurate depiction.

Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:Can you name one, just one, U.S. celebrity above the age of 25 that is confirmed as NOT sexually active?

I think he actually has a point there - not so much about being sexual active, but a general hypocrisy which encourages a certain level of sexual and sexified depiction, but goes berzerk if you go beyond a certain line. Case in point: Nipplegate. It's like the public cheers thinks you're boring for exposing less than 50% of your body, then cheers you on for a scale between 51 and 90%, and suddenly 91-100% you're a slut. Not to mention the deep, underlying demand for porn of all sorts, contrasted by an outwardly pious appearance. How many politicians gave themselves a family-friendly image, publicly demanding harsher treatment against "sinners" in order to appeal to the people, only to stumble over affairs with prostitutes?
Fortunately I personally know enough US-Americans to know differently, but just from such events you could easily get the image that it's a country of Two-Faces. It's a worrisome duality that must put the society under tremendous stress as it requires people to hide more and more of their private life because even though you know everybody does it you must maintain that clean public image of yours.

I don't really understand what he's trying to prove throwing this remark into the thread. If anything, it only goes to show how people have gotten used to the idea of women - be them real or artificial - existing as eyecandy for them to drool at. Look around you, look at the advertisements, the posters, the movies, the TV shows. It's pretty glaring if one just opens their eyes.
Once more, I'm not argueing that characters like Bayonetta should not exist - but I just don't see how someone could think they are positive examples of female characters in gaming. That's, like .. citing Sasha Grey as a positive example for women in movies. Just acknowledge what they're for, and move on.

 Lynata wrote:
Case in point: Nipplegate.

Is there some kind of rule saying anything else than Watergate ending with Gate while there is no actual gate involved is stupid?

 Lynata wrote:
If anything, it only goes to show how people have gotten used to the idea of women - be them real or artificial - existing as eyecandy for them to drool at. Look around you, look at the advertisements, the posters, the movies, the TV shows. It's pretty glaring if one just opens their eyes.

Meh. He does not seem to understand the difference between this singer showing her ass and that singer showing her ass (okay, did not want to link to the original one, that one is so much better, but still ). If one is empowerment, the other must be too, right? Nope.



Seriously, a riot grrrl like movement in video game would give so many gamers an aneurysm. I mean, Anita Sarkeesian is aggressive and man-hating? How would they react to that?