I have no idea what you're saying here. Video game characters do not dress themselves. They are "dressed" by their artists and designers, who are the actual people expressing themselves through this fictional character.
If you cannot comprehend my point there, then you do not understand the definition of a double standard and I cannot be of assistance. Also you don't seem to have the ability to take a character for what it is. It's an idea of a person. The only thing stopping it from being an actual human being is the lack of an actual, physical body. Very rarely is it in games that every woman is dressed the same. You are generalizing and even placing a blame onto someone for simply creating an idea.
But for arguments sake, lets go off of the thought that you are right and that it's 100% the artists idea to make a woman dress like that... what is your point? It's expression. Last I was aware, people are free to express themselves in any way they wish. To tread on that is to attempt to censor expression. Which is an action of oppression.
While I do NOT condone this, that kind of action is why some men refer to feminist as femi-nazis. Attempts are made to oppress expression or actions for the beneficial gain of one party, regardless of the costs.
You can't assume intention like that. Everyone's also stopped and said "ugh, i really don't want to wear this but it's the only thing clean." And there are plenty of people, of both genders, who aren't comfortable with themselves regardless of what they're wearing.
It's not an assumption, it's fact. A woman who weighs 300 pounds but can walk outside with a tank top on in 90 degrees is more comfortable with herself than a woman who is 130 and wears a long sleeve because she doesn't want people to notice the hair on her arms. I know more women than you are giving me credit for, and in my spare time I do inquiry over this subject with them.
More often it's a subject of not wearing a certain type of clothing because of an image you give off, or a missed image you may.
Ramzal said:
I'm not confusing a video game character with a person. But a character is created to either mimic or give an incite on how a certain person is or can be. You can't make a double standard and say "Well, it's in a video game so it's different."
The difference is that video games, by and large, provide a distorted view of what women are or can be. Their sexuality is overemphasized and other aspects of their personality are diminished.
That is an inflated claim and for that to be validated you would need to speak for the majority of women in the world. Which, I can assure you, you do not and cannot. This kind of behavior that you are projecting does more harm to women than good.
Ramzal said:
This is a picture of a woman walking down the street in her clothing. Yes, it is revealing. However she is smiling and is walking with an air of confidence. Is she degrading to women because she has more leg and breast showing than most women in public?
That is Tila Tequila, who has since been assaulted by one partner, had a fiancee die on her, and checked herself into rehab for her drug problem after she tried to kill herself.
She certainly doesn't have an "air of confidence" now and i hope nobody would try to see her as a role model.
So because she was sexually assaulted that makes her success invalidated? Because her fiancee died on her, that makes any accomplishment she may have obtained for nothing? And yes, she tried to kill herself. Over something that is very serious and diminishing. No one could blame her for that action because it's a terrible thing to go through. She hit a bottom, but that's how humans work, we hit a bottom, we take a drastic action and we build ourselves from that.
In order to keep living past that attempt, she'd need confidence, power, and self belief that life is worth living. How dare you attempt to cheapen someones life struggles and hardships just to make a point. If anything she serves as an example of how strong a human being is, while how frail and random our lives could be--regardless of our position in life. I would have no shame for a daughter of mine to look up to her.
Ramzal said:
Or even this woman. She seems to like how she is dressed. Is she degrading to women because she is showing more leg and stomach than the average woman?
That woman is in the middle of filming a music video. She's acting.
It's telling that both your examples are celebrities who have to maintain a public image. Virtually all forms of media, not just video games, have a problem with oversexualizing women. What about all the normal, everyday women out there, who are perfectly capable of expressing confidence without revealing clothing? Go outside and look at the women who are simply going about their daily lives around you. How many are wearing as little as the women in your examples are? More importantly, how many aren't?
I am glad you asked me this question, because yesterday on my way back home from an interview I decided to stop and sit in the grass as I watched people pass by. It was 70 degrees with high humidity. I thought about my own argument and considered the possibility of my claim being erroneous. So I took the time to count how many women showed more features of their bodies than women who wore full pants or a t-shirt.
Needless to say I was quite surprised and slightly grossed out by old women wearing revealing tank tops. Out of the 52 women who passed by my vision an overwhelming majority of 47 of them were wearing short shorts, tank tops, running shorts, or just decorative clothing with revealing cleavage. My wife being one of those who was wearing a low cut shirt as well.
Does this suffice? Or do you intend to state that 47 women--including elderly--are bringing shame to women for simply wearing what they are comfortable in?
Ramzal said:
The problem I have with your argument is that fictional women dressing a certain way is degrading to women because "They don't have a choice." However a character is made to have their own sense of flair and character and what they wear is part of that. It's expression. Art in every sense of the word. If we demand a change in something like that, we are asking for censorship, judging, and downing women who DO wear revealing clothing.
What I find perplexing about this kind of debate is that it's a subject of what is acceptable for a woman to wear or not wear--or even a portrayal of what a fictional woman would wear because it degrades or brings shame to a group of people... which is the same so called "Suppressive ideology" that men in the middle east have so that women must wear burkas.
You don't understand. We're not talking about an individual work of art here. We're talking about a mass media industry that determines what kind of games are available to the mass market. The type of games they produce are incredibly narrow in the ways in which they depict women. Nobody's talking about censorship here, we're talking about a broadening in the ways women are depicted, so that they have more bearing on reality.
The problem isn't that attractive female characters exist. There's nothing wrong with a video game character wearing revealing clothing, if it's in keeping with the character's personality. The problem is that there aren't enough characters who don't. Of course women should be able to choose what they wear, but they don't get a realistic image of what's available to them from the media.
I gave you a list of women in games and 9/10 of them do wear not revealing clothing, are beautiful and deep characters. When comparing that list to men, female characters have a vast overwhelming number in comparison. I find myself wondering why I am debating with evidence and you are not. What female characters are you referring to that are dressed a certain way and it does not fit their character?
Your statement, while with well intention if bare-bones without examples, evidence, or specific claim. I am not trying to shoot your argument down, but I do wish to see some examples of your claim, so that I may either agree with you or have a chance to challenge it. Without anything to back your words, you come short.
Ramzal said:
You can't just say "Well, I have an issue with fake women dressing that way, but real women, that's okay." That's the definition of a bias, unfounded, and restrictive double standard, ma'am.
Again, i have no idea what you're saying here. I'm biased towards actual human beings?
I am saying you have an agenda driven double standard.
Ramzal said:
Edit: Also, eyes over here people.
Due to many many people using this word incorrectly, I will address a constant "defense" if you will.
"This is degrading to women."
Degrading: Causing a loss of self-respect; humiliating.
In order for a video game character to cause a lack of self-respect, it would need to impact you to a point where you are humiliated personally. In order for all women to be degraded by a depiction of a video game character's portrayal, that character would need to undergo an action that would cause humiliation. However, the majority of these women who are "degrading" as many would put it--are in positions of power that supersede men in games. Princesses, Queens, bounty hunters, warriors, fighters, spies. Due to their positions in life and their professions and proficiencies, they serve as an example of a position to strive for in life.
The word 'degrading' has a lot of definitions. No one asked you to pick just one. Nor did anybody ask you to decide what is or is not humiliating for anyone else.
1) "to lower in dignity or estimation; bring into contempt: He felt they were degrading him by making him report to the supervisor. "
2)"to lower in character or quality; debase. "
3)"to reduce (someone) to a lower rank, degree, etc.; deprive of office, rank, status, or title, especially as a punishment: degraded from director to assistant director. "
4)"to reduce in amount, strength, intensity, etc. "
5)"Physical Geography . to wear down by erosion, as hills. Compare aggrade. "
These are the definitions of "Degrading." I will use Ivy in each of these explanations.
1) In order for Ivy to be degrading to women, a character must call her foolish or "slutty" for attempting to fight as she is dressed, and while that occurs, she has to confirm their claim by having her pride be in question. This does not happen, and even when a character attempts to question her pride in any of the games, she returns with a confident statement as words have a duller edge than a blade, or simply get right to slicing them because she doesn't have time to play "We're in the fifth grade."
2) Her quality is not lowered by her clothing. She is an effective fighter, and is comfortable with her capabilities and limitations.
3) Her father tried this. It didn't work out for him very well in the long run.
4) She is strong, intense, and brave. No fault there.
5) She is not a rock.
In order for women as a whole to be debased by Ivy and her clothing, it would need to be taken to a personal level. In which is opening yourself to playing the victim in a victimless crime/lack of crime.
Ramzal said:
I will give you an example of women being degraded.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIg4j43Lqaw
This is degrading. Women in this restaurant are forced to eat beans without hands, and only their face in order to go home earlier. The actions of this person does give an image of cheapening women as nothing but a source of entertainment.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvpGacNptzw
This is online gameplay of Ivy fighting Siegfried. During no point in this does this show any cheap or devaluing of women. She clearly is holding her own against him, on equal terms and is just as capable, if more more of a fighter than he is. So I ask you, how is this degrading? If she were wearing a business suit and had a pony tail styled hairdo, would that make it appropriate? In a game where there is a male character who is covered by nothing but two belts?
i suppose a business suit would be more appropriate for a swordfight, but again, the problem isn't that sexy characters exist. The problem is that the vast majority of female characters are sexualized while very few of the male characters are.
No, it would not. As a Quan Dao user in training, I used to practice frequently with my partner Mary. She used a Chinese straight sword mainly or daggers. She had expressed that wearing extremely restrictive clothing while using a sword is much like setting yourself up to fail. The clothes promote restrictive movement, while using a sword you have to flow like water. Either strong tides that are slow or fast waves that are small, you have to move in a certain way, but tight clothing limits this.
That is not true that very few male characters are sexualized in comparison to female. Sexuality of expression for females comes mainly from the breasts, legs, and rear. Males it is focused on the biceps, quads, shoulders, and back. The larger majority of male characters have extremely detained muscles in these areas. If it's not more often that males are sexualized it's just as often.
Ramzal said:
In the hooters example, it shows women without power being taken advantage of and humiliated. With the Ivy example, she's beating the living day lights out of a male who is bigger than her. Do you mean to suggest that if Ivy were in the hooters situation--dressed as she is--she would simply plow her face into a plate of beans. No, I think that manager would be the one who's face is in a place, while he's picking out his teeth from the beans.
I think your aggression is pointed the wrong way.
Don't change the subject. As deplorable as that man's behavior was, it doesn't make the way women are depicted in media any more acceptable.
I did not change the subject. I am stating that the effort (And now, money) that is put to fight degrading portrayal of women in video games is wasted and misdirected. Fighting for women equality is not something the majority of people are against. However this is not wear that fight is needed as more women in video games are powerful enough and capable enough as it is.
You mean to tell me that you would rather give your money, to someone woman who wants to research womens equality in video games rather than giving that money to a cause to knock a war criminal who kidnaps, kills and rapes women in Africa? This cause is as important as that is? Or is it just not an issue because it's not your home it's happening to, but Ivy could be in your PS3 so it's your problem?