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.
Hi I know recently there has been a couple of posts about Sexualisation of women in games and stuff and this and that and I can understand if you are a little sick of it but I just wanted to ask something.
While I do feel women should be equal etc and I would actually consider myself a mild feminist I don't really see what the problem is with some mild Sexualisation of women, and men in games.
I mean yeah sure some of its just ridiculous, like chainsaw lollipop among others but I actually feel having someone attractive in the game adds to it.
It's nice to see a little bit of eye candy here and there but in no way does it affect my opinion of women.
so could someone enlighten me so to speak as to why it sometimes gets blown straight out of the water and suddenly ignites a flame war?
I'm gonna get in early before this gets out of hand.
I'll say that some people may argue that sisters of battle are like that and they may be right but they're from a time when there was less fuss (fuss is probably the wrong word) about equal rights etc. I doubt they're that stupid but if they were to release those models today people probably wouldn't be happy.
I'll also say that as of yesterday the Commander of my Tau is a badass tank killing Shadowsun who's model isn't in anyway sexualised or erotic unless you start googling it and seeing peoples conversions.
If we go off her who I think is one of the only Females in 40k released in the last 10 years or so then hopefully that means they have the right idea.
As for other games and universes, I can't speak for them.
Edit: Just realised I didn't actually answer your question. I'd say its cause some people are stubborn and refuse to see that one gender gives the other too much attention occasionally. While other people will blow it out of proportion and blame too much on gender inequality. Just note I'm referring to minorities and my own experiences and I'm in no way trying to generalise.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/26 11:08:58
"That's how a Luna Wolf fights."
"If you can't keep up, go and join the Death Guard"
"It had often been said that Space Marines knew no fear, but when Angron charged, he ran"
If you support equality of all people, why would you call yourself a feminist? The term egalitarianist is much better suited for that as a term, because most of the time feminism is only interested about the rights of women.
Also I find it strange that the term feminism is thought by many to be the idea that all sexes are equal, when feminism is most of the time only interested in womens rights.
I don't in anyway want a flame war here if it does become one ill pm a mod and ask him to lock it or something.
All I want to know really ia why it sometimes seems to appear worse than genocide to people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sienisoturi wrote: If you support equality of all people, why would you call yourself a feminist? The term egalitarianist is much better suited for that as a term, because most of the time feminism is only interested about the rights of women.
Also I find it strange that the term feminism is thought by many to be the idea that all sexes are equal, when feminism is most of the time only interested in womens rights.
thank you very much for correcting me. Never really did well in English language, just literature.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/26 10:51:24
There is no problem with sexualization in media. Human beings are sexual creatures and most of us like to look at sex, think about sex and generally be reminded about sex.
The problem that rational people have with sexualization in the media is that it can often be focused on to the exclusion of any other traits when writing a character or story. Even that in itself is not inherently a problem, but it is a problem when it disproportionately effects a group of people's representation within a medium. eg. Women spending the duration of an action movie wearing almost nothing and existing only to be the love interest for the manly man hero is not inherently a problem- but it is a problem when that's the case in 9/10 action movies. That's not a problem exclusive to sexualization. The black guy only being in the movie to provide loud, obnoxious comic relief is sometimes funny. It's not so funny when that's the role they play 9/10 times. Contrast that to, say a white guy, who can and will serve in pretty much any and every role quite commonly.
The problem that irrational people have with sexualization is that they think that sexualization of a character is inherently disrespectful or demeaning to them, and that any sexualization introduced to a character or plot automatically makes it impossible for said character/plot to be well-written. eg. a woman who is supposed to be a knight can't be a good character if she's the love interest and/or she's wearing high-heels into combat or has a cleavage-window in her armor."
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/09/26 11:09:59
Thanks. tbh I gave up watching most modern films not only due to poor character development but also due to poor plot design so I haven't really watched any recent films. XD I think the last one I enjoyed was prometheus.
again thanks for explaining it. now that I think about it I could probably find a couple of films with good plots, charecter design and with attractive female protagonists. just look at prometheus and alien. Some really awesome characters
cyphersbootlick wrote: I don't in anyway want a flame war here if it does become one ill pm a mod and ask him to lock it or something.
All I want to know really ia why it sometimes seems to appear worse than genocide to people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sienisoturi wrote: If you support equality of all people, why would you call yourself a feminist? The term egalitarianist is much better suited for that as a term, because most of the time feminism is only interested about the rights of women.
Also I find it strange that the term feminism is thought by many to be the idea that all sexes are equal, when feminism is most of the time only interested in womens rights.
thank you very much for correcting me. Never really did well in English language, just literature.
I feel obliged to point out that Sien's opinions of feminism are not only incorrect, but smack of just a complete lack of knowledge - and caring - about what feminism is actually about as opposed to what the more vocal - and unfortunately more widely shared and spread across the net because of it - members of the movement preach. Feminism is most definitely about equality, and that equality is achieved by fighting the inequality we currently face; if fighting for the right of women to be equal to men is not fighting in the name of equality, then what is it? Men also suffer inequality in some forms, and you know what? Feminists who value their movement acknowledge, accept, and fight for that too.
So you go ahead and be a feminist; there's nothing wrong with it, you shouldn't be calling yourself something else instead, and you keep fighting for the equality you - and all of us - should be striving for, because ultimately that is their - our, goal.
Mandorallen turned back toward the insolently sneering baron. 'My Lord,' The great knight said distantly, 'I find thy face apelike and thy form misshapen. Thy beard, moreover, is an offence against decency, resembling more closely the scabrous fur which doth decorate the hinder portion of a mongrel dog than a proper adornment for a human face. Is it possibly that thy mother, seized by some wild lechery, did dally at some time past with a randy goat?' - Mimbrate Knight Protector Mandorallen.
Excerpt from "Seeress of Kell", Book Five of The Malloreon series by David Eddings.
"You need not fear us, unless you are a dark heart, a vile one who preys on the innocent; I promise, you can’t hide forever in the empty darkness, for we will hunt you down like the animals you are, and pull you into the very bowels of hell." Iron - Within Temptation
cyphersbootlick wrote: I don't in anyway want a flame war here if it does become one ill pm a mod and ask him to lock it or something.
All I want to know really ia why it sometimes seems to appear worse than genocide to people.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sienisoturi wrote: If you support equality of all people, why would you call yourself a feminist? The term egalitarianist is much better suited for that as a term, because most of the time feminism is only interested about the rights of women.
Also I find it strange that the term feminism is thought by many to be the idea that all sexes are equal, when feminism is most of the time only interested in womens rights.
thank you very much for correcting me. Never really did well in English language, just literature.
I feel obliged to point out that Sien's opinions of feminism are not only incorrect, but smack of just a complete lack of knowledge - and caring - about what feminism is actually about as opposed to what the more vocal - and unfortunately more widely shared and spread across the net because of it - members of the movement preach. Feminism is most definitely about equality, and that equality is achieved by fighting the inequality we currently face; if fighting for the right of women to be equal to men is not fighting in the name of equality, then what is it? Men also suffer inequality in some forms, and you know what? Feminists who value their movement acknowledge, accept, and fight for that too.
So you go ahead and be a feminist; there's nothing wrong with it, you shouldn't be calling yourself something else instead, and you keep fighting for the equality you - and all of us - should be striving for, because ultimately that is their - our, goal.
Why would you call yourself a feminist, when it can often refer to misandrist movements, while egalitarianist never does? You will simply lose nothing by stopping referring yourself as a feminist. Also, feminism as you said can only be thought as the supporter of equality if women are in a worse position than men, which is untrue most of the time in the western world. Often feminist point out to certain phenomenons that they have zero proof for, to justify that women are in a worse position. They will often also completely ignore the male population.
And for this we even have some evidence. Because corporations often have less women, feminists push a gender quotas to fix that. However, when univerrsities have often a huge gender gap between males and females for the advantage of females, the feminists suddenly are completely quiet. Albeit (If my memory serves me correct.) they do start complaining about a gender gap in a university, but only if it is only for the advantage of the males. Also men are often in a much inferior situation compared to women, as countries that have conscription only conscript men.
If you can show me data that proves that women are in a worse situation to men, I will be glad to read it through.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/27 13:16:18
I don't like sexy women in games at all. Getting a boner while playing a game is so uncomfortable To me, it does nothing but distract me from the actual game. I like beautiful girls in my games, but they need to be decently clothed.
Whether sexualisation of women in games is disrespectful to them, I don't know. I guess some women could take offense, but many won't. All I know is that I wouldn't have any problem with oversexualised men (again, I probably wouldn't play such a game, but I would not be offended by it at all). The problem may lie in that men and women have different views of sexuality?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/09/27 15:00:36
cyphersbootlick wrote: Hi I know recently there has been a couple of posts about Sexualisation of women in games and stuff and this and that and I can understand if you are a little sick of it but I just wanted to ask something.
While I do feel women should be equal etc and I would actually consider myself a mild feminist I don't really see what the problem is with some mild Sexualisation of women, and men in games.
I mean yeah sure some of its just ridiculous, like chainsaw lollipop among others but I actually feel having someone attractive in the game adds to it.
It's nice to see a little bit of eye candy here and there but in no way does it affect my opinion of women.
so could someone enlighten me so to speak as to why it sometimes gets blown straight out of the water and suddenly ignites a flame war?
I read something that Lollipop chainsaw was intended to be a kind of inversion/parody/something of action games with a male hero who has a girlfriend that was little more then a prop. Juliette is the one with the power, agency and the chainsaw, well her boyfriend is a literal charm on he belt. I don't think it impacted with the audience that way.
People want to be more then just eye candy. Women show up less in games then men do and they are eye candy more often. It's rare to find female character who isn't eye-candy. It gets annoying. People want more verity and depth. You don't really get that with a character who is made to be eye candy.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/09/27 15:46:05
