Funny Events of the "Woke" world
- Thread starter CriticalGaming
- Start date
Because people who ***** about feminist don't know shit about it and just assume everything with a competent is part of the feminist agenda to castrate all men or some shit.
Okay maybe bad example. The point wasn't the wish, the point was that people in general perfer attractive characters when given the choice.
How many of you deliberately make an ugly fucker when given the chance to create a character like in Elder Scrolls or Mass Effect? Or played as a fat ass in something like GTA or Saints Row? I don't think many people do.
There are hyper sexualized character designs, but a lot of those characters only have that design and not a hyper sexualized personality. Tomb Raider never had anything but big tits and a skimpy outfit, but otherwise sex was not part of her deal. And you said so yourself, women enjoy sex and also being sexy which means what's wrong with characters like Bayonetta, Catwoman, Black Cat, etc? Yet these characters have gotten those complaints. You can't say that women enjoy sex, and then say that all these "sexy" female characters are solely for men while also siding with people saying characters like this only exist to be sexy.
Additionally I think a lot of projection is put onto these characters as only existing because boys wanna see hot chicks, and that characters not skimpily designed are not accepted by "gamers". When the only time I've really seen people upset is when original designs are changed from a previous "sexy" design, to something covered or exceptionally downplayed. Which is a whatever thing if it makes sense, but still it happens and whatever.
Also if the male power fantasy is okay in regards to how male characters look, then why isn't that same fantasy okay in saving the heroine? If the trope is excusable, why is it only half excusable?
Well, I disagree with Crit on a lot, but if we're talking about Batwoman and Supergirl?
Well, here's Batwoman's trailer:
And if we're talking about Supergirl, it's explicitly feminist in season 2. This isn't me projecting, there's actual character lines such as "the future is female" and the characters celebrating a female president (as opposed to "the other guy" who ran for office), even as said president is flying Air Force One directly towards an alien mothership.
Supergirl is okay overall (moreso season 2 than season 1, haven't watched beyond that), but there's a lot of cringeworthy material in there. Contrast that to something like Last Jedi, where gender is never mentioned once, or in Ghostbusters 2016, where the only time the gender of the protagonists is drawn attention to is when the antagonist is hurling insults at them.
People often prefer attractiveness in characters they'll be playing as, sure. I won't say "usually", because I don't think that's necessarily true, but often, yeah. I'm sure the same is true of women.
But we're not talking about female characters designed to be attractive and capable in a way that appeals to female players as wish fulfilment. We're talking about female characters walking about in wildly impractical armour that exists solely to be revealing. That's not wish fulfilment; it's eye candy.
It's all fine, in moderation. The damsel-in-distress only became irritating because it was repeated over and over, ad nauseum.
But that trope is more irritating than just being attractive, because it involves attributing specific roles and traits to men and women.
It is lazy because it's a trope, or is it an actual lazy trope? Just becaues a story is using a trope doesn't mean it's lazy writing or a lazy trope. People call the trope lazy because they don't like the trope, but calling something lazy doesn't actually mean it's lazy.
It's lazy because it's over-used. Damsel in distress is a cheap, quick way of establishing stakes, but it's hardly the only way. Tropes are not inherently bad, but if used ot excess they become a hindrance rather than a help.
And eye candy is a problem because?
Irritating to whom? And it was repeated over and over again because.....gasp....it is popular and people buy into it. Fucking shocking.
Again why is this a problem? There are plenty of stories that circumvent this system as well. The argument seems to always be that any use of this trope is bad and it ignores the shitloads of other things that don't use it.
This is why I said people are trying to erase women as anything that falls under a traditional female role is seen as a "lazy trope" or bad somehow. Being attractive, using your body for an advantage in a situation, wearing anything feminine or otherwise revealing in fantasy or otherwise, all of this is seem as bad and nobody has yet to explain why.
Because sexism?
If video games have been studied and proven to not cause violence in people. Explain to me how they cause sexism? Especially considered the Bible exists and that book says women should shut the fuck up and serve the male overlords. One would think that maybe religion is why men grow up to be sexist dickheads, not because Catwoman's ass looks real nice in latex.
They would use tropes if people didn't like them and buy stories that use that trope. It's overused because it's popular and people like it. That doesn't make the trope lazy or bad.
It's not, and the other guy who tried telling me people were calling for Bayonetta 3 to be censored found a grand total of one deliberate shitpost asking for censorship. It's just not nearly as common as you've convinced yourself it is.
What you are finding, and it's related to the above, is that your particular preferred style of female sexiness *isn't* popular and *isn't* selling.
It's not some grand conspiracy against the concept of attractive women and your attraction to them.
It's marketing. It's sales. And hilariously, it's the predictable and asked for result of telling people 15 years ago to "make your own if you don't like it". Well, now they are. Make your own if you don't like it.
Because when eye candy makes up the majority of depictions, then it develops the idea that physical attractiveness is the main desirable trait in a woman.
Apply the same rationale to the "man up!" stuff, then. Are you telling me that men were depicted as stoic, unemotional thugs for centuries because it was popular, and therefore we should never try to challenge that stereotype by depicting them differently?
The bible didn't form millenia of worldwide sexist attitudes on its own. These things are formed by a cultural landscape composed of billions of cultural depictions.
What you're doing when you dismiss it as just moaning about "catwoman's ass" is focusing on one tree, when the argument has always been about the forest. Nobody is trying to remove every instance. An individual instance does not constitute an issue. Its about pointing out trends, which exist only in aggregate. A sexy woman character or a stay-at-home mum character are ABSOLUTELY FINE. But It effects societal attitudes, and fosters sexism, when those are 99% of what you can get-- like in the 1950s.
And you're right to say that alternatives exist now. But you have to realise... those alternatives only exist because the creators and critics overcame and ignored the same arguments you're using now.
Isn't it? I mean not for nothing but looks are what people judge first. Women too. Nobody looks at an ugly person at a club or bar and goes, "Oh damn! I bet they have a great mind!"
Looks, and not being insane, are basically the priorities. It's only after having a relationship that the other aspects of a person start to matter, like interests, hobbies, goals and dreams. And that bonus stuff is what breaks people away. But the foundation is almost always based on looks. Of course people will call that shallow but anyone who does is being hypocritical.
Pretty sure you couldn't get characters like Meleena from Mortal Kombat in the 1950's. And these sexy characters are a result of the liberations of women's freedoms in the 70's to wear and do whatever the fuck they wanted. If they wanted to be sexy, groovey. If they wanted to be housewives, that was cool too. The 50's sexism what typically about keep women out of the work force to stay home, cook, clean, and take care of the kids, nothing more. You don't need ambition when you're a wife, let the man worry about that.
Which also is the basis of why the "man up" thing is so dominant today still. IT was the man's job to earn and provide. Any man unable to do that was scum, and to this day we are judged by position and salery.
So basically "They didn't like it" so they made their own?
Great. You do your thing. Let the other stuff also be made as well. What's the problem?
As Buyeten says, Why not both?
Trust me, if you used anything other than the default looks in Mass Effect, you ended up with a severely ugly fucker. Because it’s character creator is seriously garbage.
And it's a little suspect that you only ever bring up problems like this when you want feminists to shut the fuck up. Gives one the impression you're more interested in shutting up people you disagree with than solving real problems. Especially considering I have yet to see you actually support any given proposed solution, often writing it off as just, "irrationally hating the successful," or something similarly cliched.
Propose a solution and let's see if I agree with it.
Me agreeing to solutions is hard when I don't see much of a problem in the first place. But hey hit me with something and let's see what's what.
Any of them, you've seen what I'm against pick anything I've said that you have a solution for. I don't want to accidentally pick something you've not thought out, so it's only fair to let you give me your best solution to dismantle.