Actually, Jessica Rabbit is an excellent example of some of the interesting ways that an overtly sexualized female figure can be used in art. The movie messes with audience expectations about her to generate sympathy, drama, and laughs, starting from almost the moment she's introduced (Betty Boop: "What a lucky gal...") and continuing relentlessly through the whole running time.
Right, and this isn't all that different from the Sorceress, with whose given attire you wouldn't expect much more than some random swamp witch who can't do more than make potions, ride a broom, or turn someone into a frog. Incidentally, she is also capable of doing at least two-thirds of those.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
This is really a stretch. You have to rationalize why she is a mother figure by citing her powers... but then you have to rationalize how her powers fit the mother figure role.
I already did. She's the healer and protector, with obvious caretaker qualities, but she's also a destructive force to be reckoned with. There is a slant towards nature in her skills as much as there is a slant towards unlife with a focus on the "life" part of that word. Hence, "mother goddess" archetype. Without going into a dissertation (it IS a beat 'em up after all, so you just take what you have and go from there), I'm just laying her out with all details on the table rather than just one or two. Considering also that while this is a videogame made in the 21st century, that it is also a videogame that has brought up artistic references from multiple different sources across the tapestry of past human eras, I am fairly certain that Kamitani not only did the research, but also decided to be creative about it with regards to the Sorceress.
Poison Ivy, on the other hand, is blatantly a villainous, psychopathic ecoterrorist most of the time. Not at all heroic like the Sorceress is. Sure, Ivy might allude herself as being in line with the "mother goddess" archetype, but given her setting, that's as much the self-delusion typical of an Arkham resident as it is founded in reality. Although there have been attempts to bring her on that track in a genuine fashion, I think. That really boils down to the particular comic book writer and/or artist.
In my opinion, it is okay to emphasize the Sorceress's attractiveness to reinforce it further. Hell, she might be doing it specifically to taunt an opponent, since seduction is a flexible tool. And really, it's okay to emphasize one aspect over another. It's okay to not act like a prude. Hell, it's okay to act the opposite of a prude. I just don't consider her absurd at all, as I've met people with her body shape before (one of the married women I knew, enjoyed using the Sorceress for being a character so unabashedly similar to her in form) and I like to think I see what else Kamitani was going for in her pose. So I guess the complaint just never is much of one, to me. Whether it's based on her attractiveness or her posture.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
The appropriateness of a portrayal can change even when you're looking at two takes on the same character.
Also, the appropriateness of a portrayal can change when you're looking at just one take of the same character between multiple viewpoints.
It does boil down to whether one thinks that details are expressed well enough. The difference between us is, after playing the game, I think my viewpoint is perfectly valid. If you've played the game too and you maintain your viewpoint that it's not expressed well enough, that's valid too. The existence of evidence "for" or "against" is contextually relative, and in this case, I argue it's a beat 'em up so you can only fit so many details in at once before artistic expression becomes cumbersomely clogged up. If you think that's not a good enough excuse, well alright.
Well, I disagree with the notion that fantasy that has a sexual slant to it is automatically juvenile.
Are you telling me you don't sympathize at all with the fact that the warrior nun is in pain and is having her leg bitten off? I've already explained the reason for her posture, and honestly, if you do pay attention to her crotch area first, it is notable that she has a chastity belt on, reinforcing the whole purity thing she has going on as a nun. As for the Bound Spirit, I actually consider her a representation of patriarchal oppression, as she's been imprisoned there by a coven of entirely male mages led by an old, male warlock.
There's reasons for much of the NPCs, including that girl stuck to the pole. In the quest blurb accompanying that picture, she's actually chained there as a sacrifice for the Red Dragon. Not there "just" to look sexy, at all.
I didn't dismiss it. I said it's repetition of the same design and I'm not sure it should really count towards a ratio of sexualized:nonsexualized designs as it's basically just Cammy and then three (or more, depending on if you take sources outside the videogames or not) copypastings of her. Save Decapre, they don't really have distinct personalities either. Which makes the whole thing more sinister, than anything. Also, Ingrid is not originally a Street Fighter design so I don't think you can blame her legginess (which doesn't compare at all to Chun-Li) on the original SF developers, or even the modern ones. She's a crossover character from Capcom Fighting Jam.
Also, I only said the Poison thing as a joke I couldn't resist, as watching Austin Powers with my dad was one of my fondest film memories. That said, she does identify as a female, but she's also Hugo's wrestling manager. Besides the fact that her outfit is a legacy of the 90's, it, like R. Mika, is probably just in keeping with motifs of the wrestling scene.
I don't have a defense for how and why they handled Poison, though. That does kinda reek of sexism, but those were times when we thought putting a leg... collar... thing, on Superboy's leg, was a good idea.
Right, and this isn't all that different from the Sorceress, with whose given attire you wouldn't expect much more than some random swamp witch who can't do more than make potions, ride a broom, or turn someone into a frog. Incidentally, she is also capable of doing at least two-thirds of those.
Not even close. Her costume says "can do magic"... and she can. And her sexualization is just sort of there. It exists for players to gawk at. It doesn't generate sympathy, drama, or laughs.
I already did. She's the healer and protector, with obvious caretaker qualities, but she's also a destructive force to be reckoned with. There is a slant towards nature in her skills as much as there is a slant towards unlife with a focus on the "life" part of that word. Hence, "mother goddess" archetype.
Do you see how you have to try to convince us that destruction and undeath are somehow part of the mother goddess archetype? That means they're not working as symbols on their own. This is what I mean when I say you're stretching.
Poison Ivy, on the other hand, is blatantly a villainous, psychopathic ecoterrorist most of the time. Not at all heroic like the Sorceress is. Sure, Ivy might allude herself as being in line with the "mother goddess" archetype, but given her setting, that's as much the self-delusion typical of an Arkham resident as it is founded in reality.
Oh, hey, it's almost like Ivy is a multidimensional character! And what was it you were saying earlier? About "progression"?
I just don't consider her absurd at all, as I've met people with her body shape before...
Show me one. Find one unaltered picture of an unaltered woman with those proportions. (A SFW picture, obviously, but I don't think you'd have much better luck with pornography anyway.)
It does boil down to whether one thinks that details are expressed well enough.
No. Like I said, even if the details are there, they don't alter the complaint that she looks ridiculous. She doesn't become less ridiculous if she's also a subtle mother figure and whatnot. The two artistic issues stand independent of each other.
Are you telling me you don't sympathize at all with the fact that the warrior nun is in pain and is having her leg bitten off? I've already explained the reason for her posture, and honestly, if you do pay attention to her crotch area first, it is notable that she has a chastity belt on, reinforcing the whole purity thing she has going on as a nun. As for the Bound Spirit, I actually consider her a representation of patriarchal oppression, as she's been imprisoned there by a coven of entirely male mages led by an old, male warlock.
You know you're just digging the hole deeper, right? The sexualization of women in such unsexual - indeed, anti-sexual - situations is exploitative and fetishistic. And the patriarchy element of the story doesn't make the sexualization go away; it just makes the sexualization hypocritical. "Shame on those dirty old men for keeping a woman in bondage, robbing her of her independence and using her as an object for their own pleasures... now check out those gazongas, guys!"
There's reasons for much of the NPCs, including that girl stuck to the pole. In the quest blurb accompanying that picture, she's actually chained there as a sacrifice for the Red Dragon. Not there "just" to look sexy, at all.
In exploitation fiction, there are always reasons for the women to be displayed sexually. The sexiness is the goal; the reasons are just excuses. And they seldom completely justify the sexiness, anyway: nothing about the dragon-sacrifice plot requires this woman to be buxom, scantily-clad, sitting with her arms raised, back arched, and legs splayed. All those aspects of the picture are there for the male audience.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not even close. Her costume says "can do magic"... and she can. And her sexualization is just sort of there. It exists for players to gawk at. It doesn't generate sympathy, drama, or laughs.
Not everything needs to. Sympathetic, dramatic, or comedic effect are not the only things that need to be evoked in art.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Do you see how you have to try to convince us that destruction and undeath are somehow part of the mother goddess archetype? That means they're not working as symbols on their own. This is what I mean when I say you're stretching.
I don't need to convince you as death and destruction have literally been part of the "mother goddess" archetype since time immemorial. I know Wikipedia is kind of laughable as a source, but honestly, there it is. The reason I keep repeating myself is not because I'm trying to stretch, but because that's what it is.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Oh, hey, it's almost like Ivy is a multidimensional character!
Um... No? Ivy takes one of two notes in the binary track of an average Arkham resident.
I'm crazy.
I'm crazy, but I swear I'm not.
She oscillates between the two with a distinct slant towards the latter. In other words, she's just a flavor of crazy to the point of almost being a Villain of the Week, depending.
I think "multidimensional character" would better fit Selina Kyle, who has gone through more than enough growth that some of it's actually stuck, and she's shown her fair share of being a maternal character whereas Ivy's usually more full-on insane and one gets the feeling she treats her plants as pets more than children at times. Compare to Sorceress who can actively protect her own "children" with attacks and defensive spells.
Also, you're misconstruing what I mean by "progression." I don't mean "character progression" but "conceptual progresion."
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
...she does it just walking down an empty hallway.
The simple act of walking is seductive? It's not like she's moving like she's on a catwalk for her regular animation. And hell, she does it with shoes that aren't high heels. That's pretty atypical of many recent fantasy entries, West and East. (coughwitcher3ciricough)
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Show me one. Find one unaltered picture of an unaltered woman with those proportions. (A SFW picture, obviously, but I don't think you'd have much better luck with pornography anyway.)
I would've posted a picture of the married ladies I know, but as this is a #Gamergate discussion, and people have been getting doxxed and harassed for less than just pictures (including two minors, recently!), I'd really rather not. We can avoid more misogynists and haters, that way. Also, such women tend to be somewhat less uncommon in SoCal, in my experience.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
No. Like I said, even if the details are there, they don't alter the complaint that she looks ridiculous. She doesn't become less ridiculous if she's also a subtle mother figure and whatnot. The two artistic issues stand independent of each other.
Again, I must reiterate that I don't think her all that ridiculous.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
That's not what he said. He said that this fantasy is juvenile.
I can only assume that if anyone else were this attractive in another work, A Guy would find them "juvenile" too. If I'm wrong, let me know.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
You know you're just digging the hole deeper, right? The sexualization of women in such unsexual - indeed, anti-sexual - situations is exploitative and fetishistic. And the patriarchy element of the story doesn't make the sexualization go away; it just makes the sexualization hypocritical. "Shame on those dirty old men for keeping a woman in bondage, robbing her of her independence and using her as an object for their own pleasures... now check out those gazongas, guys!"
It makes no sense to dodge the extent of how exploitive the patriarchy can be if you don't show it, especially with a game as rich in its artwork as Dragon's Crown can be. Otherwise the art has less force to it, misinterpreted as it can be or not, or whether it can 'trigger' people or not. And Tiki the Fairy disapproves greatly of you poking her further, not to mention you're actively pissing off other players who want to get on with the game. So you do get judged and prodded by both the game and the community itself.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
In exploitation fiction, there are always reasons for the women to be displayed sexually. The sexiness is the goal; the reasons are just excuses. And they seldom completely justify the sexiness, anyway: nothing about the dragon-sacrifice plot requires this woman to be buxom, scantily-clad, sitting with her arms raised, back arched, and legs splayed. All those aspects of the picture are there for the male audience.
Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with being buxom, but if you were after the dragon-sacrifice plot on its own, maybe. However note also that this is also a reference to how cultures in general told of ritual sacrifice. Often they were young, attractive women, and the fact that the woman in the picture is of Greek-ish dress is an allusion to that. As for posture, well.. I'm pretty sure she hears the damned Gildiss-expy coming, which is why she's sitting up and perhaps trying to stand.
I don't need to convince you as death and destruction have literally been part of the "mother goddess" archetype since time immemorial. I know Wikipedia is kind of laughable as a source, but honestly, there it is. The reason I keep repeating myself is not because I'm trying to stretch, but because that's what it is.
The sorceress' suite of spells is utterly generic D&D-style wizard magic. By your logic, Raistlin is a mother figure. So no, there's nothing distinctively maternal about her abilities. Even granting that destruction is in the domain of some ancient mother goddesses, that is (again) not a live symbol in our culture, and simply being able to destroy things would not connect a character to that domain even if it were.
I think "multidimensional character" would better fit Selina Kyle, who has gone through more than enough growth that some of it's actually stuck, and she's shown her fair share of being a maternal character whereas Ivy's usually more full-on insane and one gets the feeling she treats her plants as pets more than children at times. Compare to Sorceress who can actively protect her own "children" with attacks and defensive spells.
Both Ivy and the sorceress protect their creations with attacks and defensive spells/abilities. And of the two of them, only Ivy actually calls her creations "children", is shown to spend her free time nurturing them, and has their protection as a primary character motive. Where, in Dragon's Crown, does the sorceress ever get pissed off because someone hurt one of her skeletons? And skeletons are very strong cultural symbols of death, whereas plants are strong cultural symbols of life.
The simple act of walking is seductive? It's not like she's moving like she's on a catwalk for her regular animation. And hell, she does it with shoes that aren't high heels. That's pretty atypical of many recent fantasy entries, West and East. (coughwitcher3ciricough)
Yes, her regular walking animation is absolutely a catwalk strut. That she's wearing flats is a pretty meager defense to the charge. "At least her feet aren't oversexualized!" Whatever. And saying that other games also oversexualize their female characters is no defense either - it's not like people are only complaining about Dragon's Crown.
Smaller breasts, wider waist, forced perspective exaggerates their apparent sizes, Photoshop may even have gotten involved. Yes, she's well endowed; no, she doesn't compare to Kamitani's art. The parallel sketch of the sorceress is a bit of a cheat - it's considerably more modestly proportioned than the character as she actually appears in the game.
I would've posted a picture of the married ladies I know, but as this is a #Gamergate discussion, and people have been getting doxxed and harassed for less than just pictures (including two minors, recently!), I'd really rather not.
Yes, that's why I asked for a pic from the internet.
It makes no sense to dodge the extent of how exploitive the patriarchy can be if you don't show it, especially with a game as rich in its artwork as Dragon's Crown can be. Otherwise the art has less force to it, misinterpreted as it can be or not, or whether it can 'trigger' people or not.
There is a difference between showing the exploitation and participating in it. Dragon's Crown participates in the exploitation by displaying these exploited women as sexual, titillating objects. It glamorizes their situation. To show the exploitation would be to pull back that veil of glamor and convey to the audience their sadness, fear, and desperation. The spirit would not be in a languid odalisque pose that says clear as a neon sign "I want sex". She would be in a tense, combative position, or perhaps curled up trying to protect herself and her modesty, or really anything else.
Now, maybe you'll say that she's lying down because she's exhausted by what the mages are doing to her, or pull some other excuse out of nowhere. Like I said, there are always excuses in exploitation fiction. They don't change what the final product looks like, and was clearly always intended to look like. There is absolutely no chance that Kamitani sat down, reasoned through all the story developments, and drew the result impartially, and it just happened to look like an odalisque. He wanted to draw an odalisque from the beginning.
And Tiki the Fairy disapproves greatly of you poking her further, not to mention you're actively pissing off other players who want to get on with the game.
Sigh. In how many games are players given the opportunity to poke beautiful captive women (who wiggle suggestively and make sexual noises) at all?
Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with being buxom, but if you were after the dragon-sacrifice plot on its own, maybe. However note also that this is also a reference to how cultures in general told of ritual sacrifice. Often they were young, attractive women, and the fact that the woman in the picture is of Greek-ish dress is an allusion to that. As for posture, well.. I'm pretty sure she hears the damned Gildiss-expy coming, which is why she's sitting up and perhaps trying to stand.
Make all the excuses you want. Again, they're just excuses.
Like Blinking Spirit says, there are always 'reasons'. In the end, though, the artist is responsible for the portrayal. It's not even just that the woman is young, buxom and attractive, it's the composition of the piece. I'm not an artist (nor do I play one on television) but I'm pretty sure the focus of that composition isn't the dragon, nor even the girl, but her breasts.
I contend that it is perfectly possible to draw an attractive young woman being menaced by a dragon in such a way that either the dragon, or the woman, or both, draw the eye, and not just the woman's breasts. To choose to make the woman's breasts the focus, above all else, is unnecessary sexualisation. If the breasts were smaller, but the posture the same, the comments would still be made (c.f. Avengers posing). I'm almost surprised they haven't twisted her around so you could see her buttocks as well. I'm sure they could find a 'reason' for that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
The sorceress' suite of spells is utterly generic D&D-style wizard magic.
Sure, until you realize they're almost all either nature-based on steeped in classical witch tales.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
By your logic, Raistlin is a mother figure.
Could you explain, as I haven't read Dragonlance?
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
So no, there's nothing distinctively maternal about her abilities.
Growing food from the very earth doesn't draw from the "mother goddess" archetype? Actively protecting both her children and her teammates alike isn't drawing from the "mother goddess" archetype? Being an apparent (exaggerated?) symbol of fertility breathing life into that which has passed, isn't drawing from the "mother goddess" archetype? Having the elements at her beck and call doesn't draw from the "mother goddess" archetype?
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Even granting that destruction is in the domain of some ancient mother goddesses, that is (again) not a live symbol in our culture, and simply being able to destroy things would not connect a character to that domain even if it were.
This might be a reasonable inference if Kamitani hadn't actively been drawing from the older ideas from human history. See the link I provided about Dragon's Crown's artistic references.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Both Ivy and the sorceress protect their creations with attacks and defensive spells/abilities. And of the two of them, only Ivy actually calls her creations "children", is shown to spend her free time nurturing them, and has their protection as a primary character motive.
No matter how much Ivy moans and groans about the loss of her plants, she's still weaponizing purely for immediate destruction. "Life" is technically something of a tangential concern for her in its immediacy because she's primarily an ecoterrorist almost at the exclusion of everything else, no matter what her end goal is.
And Sorceress does plenty of nurturing, but because this is a videogame, Kamitani has decided to show that through actual gameplay and what kind of skills the Sorceress is often using. Instead of taking the "tell" approach, he takes the "show" approach because that's just the natural and best way to go with videogames.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Yes, her regular walking animation is absolutely a catwalk strut. That she's wearing flats is a pretty meager defense to the charge. "At least her feet aren't oversexualized!" Whatever. And saying that other games also oversexualize their female characters is no defense either - it's not like people are only complaining about Dragon's Crown.
Uh, no. I wasn't using it as a defense, I was merely point it out as an aside. There's no need to act so dismissive on such a minor detail I wasn't even using as a real argument. Same with the mention of Witcher 3. I am simply questioning the idea that her walking animation isn't anything other than a regular walk. It's not like she's putting one foot directly ahead of the other and then stopping to pose, or anything like that, as I've seen in many fashion shows.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Smaller breasts, wider waist, forced perspective exaggerates their apparent sizes, Photoshop may even have gotten involved. Yes, she's well endowed; no, she doesn't compare to Kamitani's art. The parallel sketch of the sorceress is a bit of a cheat - it's considerably more modestly proportioned than the character as she actually appears in the game.
I think you're nitpicking something that is actually pretty close, personally. I actually think the sketch isn't as good a matchup to the actual woman, in the first place. Furthermore, you didn't ask for exact proportions, and I wouldn't ask you to, say, give me a 1-1 in-reality representation of the Fighter. Even then, it wouldn't be exact. I think it's fairer to settle for close enough, and anything else would be almost akin to a moving goalpost.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Yes, that's why I asked for a pic from the internet.
Looks like we were both on the same page! Cool.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
There you go making assumptions again...
What you call assumption, I call reasonable inference. Soon as he clarifies, I'll rescind the statement if need be. I just find it hard to believe he wouldn't find anything else of potentially similar ilk, juvenile.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
There is a difference between showing the exploitation and in it. Dragon's Crown participates in the exploitation by displaying these exploited women as sexual, titillating objects. It glamorizes their situation. To show the exploitation would be to pull back that veil of glamor and convey to the audience their sadness, fear, and desperation. The spirit would not be in a languid odalisque pose that says clear as a neon sign "I want sex". She would be in a tense, combative position, or perhaps curled up trying to protect herself and her modesty, or really anything else.
Glamorizing in what way? Because they're attractive, it's glamorizing? There's nothing positive about how she's portrayed, and she has the sullen look of a person who isn't quite glad to see you, because she's likely already been through a lot. I don't, at all, read "I want sex" anywhere in that at all. Furthermore, she is a Spirit; modesty may not mean as much to her as it does to the average human, but I think there is determination in her gaze and absolutely nothing playful. Fiction doesn't have to equate to reality all the time, you know. Plus, you're playing the heroes. Perhaps she picked up on that and is acting less protective of herself as a result.
Whether or not Kamitani drew from odalisques as an inspiration, I don't believe it is a full-on odalisque myself. There are too many other factors.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Sigh. In how many games are players given the opportunity to poke beautiful captive women (who wiggle suggestively and make sexual noises) at all?
Not many, so we're going into unexplored territory. Unexplored territory that we receive in-game condemnation for. And I think moaning because you're picking on her in that way is a natural reaction, and something you probably shouldn't be doing.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Make all the excuses you want. Again, they're just excuses.
"Reasoning for the art being the way it is" are excuses?
Quote from Grant »
I contend that it is perfectly possible to draw an attractive young woman being menaced by a dragon in such a way that either the dragon, or the woman, or both, draw the eye, and not just the woman's breasts. To choose to make the woman's breasts the focus, above all else, is unnecessary sexualisation.
Some people just can't help having large, eye-catching breasts. And I'd argue the focus is less on those and more on the expressive distress of the woman in question. Her being shapely is just another nod to prior such situations in Western fantasy, which makes perfect sense in a game that is designed to recount Western fantasy across the ages rather than being locked to certain sensibilities in the 21st century. It's not something special to Dragon's Crown, but perhaps such a situation, despite being a classic fantasy trope, is indeed endemic of sexualization and maybe even sexism. At the very least, I don't think there was any sinister and expressly exploitive intent, or otherwise they might have Rob Liefelded her like you suggested, Grant.
While there is personal bias attributed to the "significance" of "reasons" in art, or details in art, it doesn't stop those reasons or details from being there.
Are you telling me you don't sympathize at all with the fact that the warrior nun is in pain and is having her leg bitten off? I've already explained the reason for her posture,
The reason for her posture is to show her crotch off. Also, "Is having her leg bitten off?" Seriously? The video in question has over twelve minutes of the woman on her back, legs spread, crotch not-just-exposed-but-center-shot, with her chest heaving, panting, with her facial expression definitely not being one of someone being bitten by a damn dog and bleeding to death. This is porn.
Also the dog's head is severed.
and honestly, if you do pay attention to her crotch area first,
It is impossible not to pay attention to her crotch area first, dude. It's centered in the shot, and the camera perspective makes it bigger than her head.
it is notable that she has a chastity belt on, reinforcing the whole purity thing she has going on as a nun.
No, point of order: literal chastity belts have nothing to do with nuns and purity. In fact, they were only commonly used in the 19th century as a form of anti-masturbation device, primarily for children, as it was believed at the time that masturbation caused insanity.
So if you see one in a modern context, it is most likely either a parody of an erroneous belief about crusade era practices that didn't happen, see also Robin Hood: Men in Tights, or it's bondage porn. Clearly this is the second.
Growing food from the very earth doesn't draw from the "mother goddess" archetype? Actively protecting both her children and her teammates alike isn't drawing from the "mother goddess" archetype? Being an apparent (exaggerated?) symbol of fertility breathing life into that which has passed, isn't drawing from the "mother goddess" archetype? Having the elements at her beck and call doesn't draw from the "mother goddess" archetype?
No. She is a sex doll with levels in wizard. Rephrasing standard wizard spells to sound more maternal doesn't actually make them more maternal.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
And Sorceress does plenty of nurturing, but because this is a videogame, Kamitani has decided to show that through actual gameplay and what kind of skills the Sorceress is often using. Instead of taking the "tell" approach, he takes the "show" approach.
Symbolically, her skeletons represent death. Mechanically, they are expendable meat-shields. Kamitani is showing us a stock necromancer character, nothing more.
I am simply questioning the idea that her walking animation isn't anything other than a regular walk.
That is not how human beings walk. They don't move their arms like that, they don't move their hips like that, they definitely don't move their chests like that.
What you call assumption, I call reasonable inference. Soon as he clarifies, I'll rescind the statement if need be.
No. That is not okay. You don't get to set up whatever straw men you want and then just back off on them. You have a responsibility to get it right from the beginning.
Because they're attractive, in sexual costumes, in sexual poses, making sexual noises, framed to maximize and emphasize the sexual assets on display, in warm inviting light... I could go on.
I don't, at all, read "I want sex" anywhere in that at all.
Heavy-lidded eyes, pursed lips, flushed cheeks, head turned down and away slightly: it's the classic "come-hither" look. At this point I can only say that you are displaying staggering levels of denial.
Furthermore, she is a Spirit; modesty may not mean as much to her as it does to the average human, but I think there is determination in her gaze and absolutely nothing playful. Fiction doesn't have to equate to reality all the time, you know. Plus, you're playing the heroes. Perhaps she picked up on that and is acting less protective of herself as a result.
Not many, so we're going into unexplored territory. Unexplored territory that we receive in-game condemnation for. And I think moaning because you're picking on her in that way is a natural reaction, and something you probably shouldn't be doing.
The designers of this game, unlike so many other games, have thoughtfully provided the player with an opportunity to grope a half-naked woman they just found chained up. No, a moan of pleasure is not, not, not, not a natural reaction for a woman in that situation - I cannot stress that enough. And what you call the game's "condemnation" consists solely of the line "Tiki is not-so-subtly judging you"; they could have written the same line if Tiki just caught you with a sex toy. This is sexual assault, and the game is treating it like kinky fun hijinks.
"Reasoning for the art being the way it is" are excuses?
The way you're doing it? Emphatically yes. You are groping for any reason not to have to acknowledge the obvious: Kamitani drew a whole lot of fanservice for this game.
Update on Gamergate news: Zoe Quinn said she was donating money to charity, GG harrased her and her chosen charities until she showed her receipts, then changed their story from "Zoeldemort didn't donate" to "she didn't donate enough". Various mental health/suicide prevention charities are now being flooded with donations and/or hatemail.
Growing food from the very earth doesn't draw from the "mother goddess" archetype? Actively protecting both her children and her teammates alike isn't drawing from the "mother goddess" archetype? Being an apparent (exaggerated?) symbol of fertility breathing life into that which has passed, isn't drawing from the "mother goddess" archetype? Having the elements at her beck and call doesn't draw from the "mother goddess" archetype?
Those are pretty broad criteria, and I think you could just about shoehorn the Christian God into them.
I contend that it is perfectly possible to draw an attractive young woman being menaced by a dragon in such a way that either the dragon, or the woman, or both, draw the eye, and not just the woman's breasts. To choose to make the woman's breasts the focus, above all else, is unnecessary sexualisation.
Some people just can't help having large, eye-catching breasts. And I'd argue the focus is less on those and more on the expressive distress of the woman in question. Her being shapely is just another nod to prior such situations in Western fantasy, which makes perfect sense in a game that is designed to recount Western fantasy across the ages rather than being locked to certain sensibilities in the 21st century. It's not something special to Dragon's Crown, but perhaps such a situation, despite being a classic fantasy trope, is indeed endemic of sexualization and maybe even sexism. At the very least, I don't think there was any sinister and expressly exploitive intent, or otherwise they might have Rob Liefelded her like you suggested, Grant.
Indeed. But artists can help what they draw.
And a world of no. The focus of the piece is the breasts. I'm not reading anything into it; I don't _have_ to. The breasts are front and centre in the image, the dragon and her face are placed secondarily. As for expressive distress? Hardly. Her face has an expression of mild surprise, she's not cowering nor shrinking back. There may not have been sinister intent, but I suspect very strongly that there was intent to exploit.
While there is personal bias attributed to the "significance" of "reasons" in art, or details in art, it doesn't stop those reasons or details from being there.[/quote]
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
The dog is also a hellhound (probably still partially alive even without its head) with a still very apparent, very firm bite on her leg. She's wearing armor, she's bearing a mace, her chainmail pants are torn, and she looks very much like she's in pain and sounds like it. None of this "suggestiveness" as keeps getting said. To look at all that and not think "oh damn this must have been a battle" and instead think "oh this is pornography" is a stretch.
Also, the whole link to BDSM is fairly closer to recent times than one of the original reasons of having a chastity belt, which was to prevent rape or intercourse. And nuns, especially of the fairly important demon-fighting warrior type, are encouraged not to do the latter, hence the addition of it.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Nature-based only in the broadest sense that any wizard's spells are nature-based. She sure as hell isn't a druid.
Not everyone who has nature-related capabilities needs to be a Druid, or a Wiccan, or what have you. All I'm saying is, the Sorceress both draws heavily from the "mother goddess" archetype and turns it on its head at the same time, serving as a separate interpretation on her own.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Not much to explain, really. Raistlin uses death and destruction magic, therefore Raistlin is a mother figure.
This is an oversimplificaiton of the "mother goddess" archetype. Where's the life-related symbolism? Where's the paternal relationship with others? Where's the overarching feeling or theme that he's doing things to take care of others? Can't have destruction without the creation, or else it's just pure force. If you can tell me about Raistlin being a father figure or having a fatherly role, twist or otherwise, with an overarching theme in creation as well as destruction integrated full well into his capabilities like the Sorceress, then yeah I'd buy it. But if not, then I think he's probably more reasonably compared to the Wizard, who is death and destruction in his spell set and demeanor, with hardly any sense of warmth and recovery to him at all.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Symbolically, her skeletons represent death. Mechanically, they are expendable meat-shields. Kamitani is showing us a stock necromancer character, nothing more.
Symbolically, her skeletons together with her represent unity of life and death. Mechanically, she is capable of protecting them through all sorts of ways (see: Gravity spell, Ice Prison spell, Blizzard spell, Protection shielding spell). That you perceive or interpret less than that is your own conscious decision.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
That is not how human beings walk. They don't move their arms like that, they don't move their hips like that, they definitely don't move their chests like that.
Honestly, to me the Sorceress is moving like she's ready for adventure, and fluidity in motion just goes with her shape.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
No. That is not okay. You don't get to set up whatever straw men you want and then just back off on them. You have a responsibility to get it right from the beginning.
I am also a human capable of making mistakes. I'm not a robot; if my logic or line of thinking is faulty, please point it out.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Because they're attractive, in sexual costumes, in sexual poses, making sexual noises, framed to maximize and emphasize the sexual assets on display, in warm inviting light... I could go on.
Again, matter of interpretation, and your's in particular relies too much on pure visual clues that may be on their own misinterpreted, not to mention that they don't take into account what's actually happening in-game.
Quote from Blinking Spirit »
Heavy-lidded eyes, pursed lips, flushed cheeks, head turned down and away slightly: it's the classic "come-hither" look. At this point I can only say that you are displaying staggering levels of denial.
Features that explain something closer to a tired, but determined individual who is showing some slight embarrassment to the heroes about her predicament, I think. If it were "come-hither" she'd probably look coyer instead of annoyed.
Quote from Grant »
Those are pretty broad criteria, and I think you could just about shoehorn the Christian God into them.
Well, why not? Christianity borrows from a whole lot of things in the first place.
Quote from Grant »
Indeed. But artists can help what they draw.
Sure. I never said Kamitani and Shigatake didn't have the responsibility for what they draw.
Quote from Grant »
And a world of no. The focus of the piece is the breasts. I'm not reading anything into it; I don't _have_ to. The breasts are front and centre in the image, the dragon and her face are placed secondarily. As for expressive distress? Hardly. Her face has an expression of mild surprise, she's not cowering nor shrinking back.
She's in tears, man. She knows what's coming. But she sits up straight because she knows it's the end and has resolved herself to meet her fate. Per the quest linked to that piece of art, that's a Princess who is sacrificing her life to the Red Dragon in order to keep its favor, which is a throwback to the whole Saint George thing, except no Saint George. She ends up being revered as a goddess and worship of her brings the ire of the world's main religious faith.
Attractiveness was strictly secondary in all that, I think.
And see, that's the thing. We're pretty entrenched in our views to the point that there's all these oversimplifications, misinterpretaions, and so forth, and all we're doing at this point is going in circles. I offer an alternate viewpoint of many elements of Dragon's Crown, nothing more, nothing else. At this point, I'm fairly certain I can't convince you guys, but that doesn't mean I concede my points.
However, this will be the last time I post with regard to Dragon's Crown. I personally think it's a work of art that serves as perhaps one of the greatest testaments to Western fantasy every created, even if it's "just a videogame" and is loaded with female pulchritude. Hell, it's not like I don't think there's an oversaturation of attractiveness, male or female; the one thing I think was missing from Dragon's Crown was figures and individuals who had less than ideal appearances but were also heroic. Though I guess that's not surprising considering what it's drawing from, but even though it's not perfect, I'm willing to acknowledge that the pulchritude has purpose beyond titillation and that the experience of the whole game was one of the best ones I've had in the past few years.
And I guess that's all I have left to say on the matter.
Update on Gamergate news: Zoe Quinn said she was donating money to charity, GG harrased her and her chosen charities until she showed her receipts, then changed their story from "Zoeldemort didn't donate" to "she didn't donate enough". Various mental health/suicide prevention charities are now being flooded with donations and/or hatemail.
Though the discussion of #Gamergate has moved past her, that is is very cool of her, and should keep any further accusations of that debacle with Wizardchan off her back.
There was also that whole thing with Jennifer Hale getting on Marketplace Tech. I'm glad she didn't go for the loaded questions, as that makes her a cool head on the side of Social Justice even to both sides of this debate.
Again, matter of interpretation, and your's in particular relies too much on pure visual clues that may be on their own misinterpreted, not to mention that they don't take into account what's actually happening in-game.
I want to leave you with this thought: you've repeatedly expressed a subjectivist "all interpretations of art are valid" position in this thread, but here you're claiming quite directly that I am committing a misinterpretation - that my interpretation is wrong. You can't have it both ways. You can't argue that your interpretation is unimpeachable because interpreting art is a matter of individual points of view, then turn around and try to impeach my point of view as a misinterpretation. You have to commit to one option or the other: either all interpretations of art are valid, meaning my interpretation is just as valid as yours; or it is possible to misinterpret art, meaning it is possible for you to have misinterpreted this art.
Since I've been arguing consistently that you have misinterpreted the art throughout this conversation, it should be pretty clear which option I think is the correct one. If you agree, we only differ on which one of us did the misinterpreting. So who was it, you or me? I've made my case; let's look at yours. It's... baffling. You say that my interpretation relies too much on visual cues. In a visual medium. After repeatedly and effusively praising Kamigani as a visual artist. It may surprise you to learn that visual cues are of paramount importance here. If there is a mismatch between the visual cues and the narrative, the cues leading the audience one way and the narrative another way, then the problem isn't that the audience is misinterpreting the art; the problem is that the art is dissonant. The narrative tells that the spirit is a victim of horrible abuse, but the visual shows that she is a healthy, desirable, and willing sex partner. Artist's fault, not the audience's.
Now, you're right that narratives and other context in art can change the meaning of a visual. But here, with this art, you're not asking me to modify my interpretation of the art by taking into account both the visual and the narrative. Rather, you're asking me to disregard the visual, to believe your explanations that the overtly sexual cues in these images are not really there but just a series of increasingly implausible coincidences: all of these women just happen to be impossibly gorgeous, the expression on the spirit's face just happens to look like bedroom eyes, the dragon sacrifice just happens to be arching her back to display her huge breasts, the nun just happens to be spreading her legs to put her crotch prominently at the center of the field of view. And your explanations wouldn't work even if the coincidences were plausible. That is emphatically not what women in distress look like. Just as one last example, if our Andromeda figure is really frightened of the dragon, she should show it in her body language by tensing her muscles and recoiling as far as possible to the right. The balanced pose we actually see is consistent with submissive bondage play, not the unbalancing situation we are supposed to believe she is in. Again: dissonance between visual and narrative.
So, there is dissonance between visual and narrative, and you want me to disregard the visual... but might you on the same grounds complain that I want you to disregard the narrative? That does seem to be the heart of your argument. Now, I could defend the significance of the visual over the narrative, pointing out again that this is a primarily visual medium, and invoking the principle of "show, don't tell". But I don't have to, because in fact I am not asking you to disregard the narrative the same way you're asking me to disregard the visual. Your theory of the art chalks the sexual cues up to coincidence; my theory of the art actually accounts for narrative. Like I said, I agree that Kamitani is a competent visual artist, competent enough to know what a woman in distress looks like as opposed to what a woman ready for sexy fun time looks like. It does not make sense to believe that he set out to draw the former and mistakenly, by happenstance, ended up with the latter - multiple times. However, it does make sense to believe that he set out to draw the latter and then went looking for narrative reasons to excuse it. I'm not even opposed in principle to people doing this. Porn exists, and that's perfectly fine. The problem here is that the narrative Kamitani chose for his porn is jarringly, even disturbingly dissonant: going beyond its failure on the purely artistic level, it is to say the least not good to depict victimized women as sexually gratifying.
And the other problem, of course, is that diehard fans refuse to see this, and will engage in elaborate mental gymnastics not to have to do so. Think about it. Of the two of us, I've got no reason to want to defame the game - I actually think it's superbly crafted - whereas you clearly have an emotional investment in praising it. So my final advice to you is to step back and ask yourself if that might be affecting your judgment. Don't be that guy who thinks he has to defend Mickey Rooney's role in Breakfast at Tiffany's. You can do better than that.
Modern day white males are statistically better off than pretty much everyone, particularly in tech/games. There are people who don't appreciate that, and they're going to keep complaining. Unequal systems don't spontaneously get more equal.
Some group will always technically meet that criteria (envy =/= moral outrage). As for unequal systems and the gender wage gap we have discused that on MTG debate forums before, women and men making different lifestyle choices (of which women who make the same choices as men do the same) it seems quite dishonest to present that as an injustice against women if even an injustice at all. Seriously men on average work more hours then women how the hell is it unjust for them to have bigger paychecks as a result (note-I believe women have agency of their own).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Some group will always technically meet that criteria (envy =/= moral outrage). As for unequal systems and the gender wage gap we have discused that on MTG debate forums before, women and men making different lifestyle choices (of which women who make the same choices as men do the same) it seems quite dishonest to present that as an injustice against women if even an injustice at all. Seriously men on average work more hours then women how the hell is it unjust for them to have bigger paychecks as a result (note-I believe women have agency of their own).
1) This is just more of the same which I have addressed a difference in earnings does not an injustice make. Staying longer hours kind of seems like EARNING something.
2) An appeal to emotion and a version of gamergate squarely at odds with reality, hell even a radical feminist organizations representative was calling dismissing the complaints about the gaming industry as mysoginy BS. The truth is everyone in the spotlight receives threats and to try to use that to derail the conversation and take it into SJ fantasy land isn't going to work. You should check out #NotYourShield.
3) Another appeal to emotion. Having a child is a choice (well it is for women it's a consequence for men-sometimes even males who are raped and threatened with jail time for being unable to pay child support, which is kind of tricky when you are 14). There's an interesting Swedish documentary on that countries gender research center that so effectively demonstrated that it was just a front for manufacturing feminist agitator propaganda (aka bull*****) that the government defunded it. Feminist researchers (of which your sources regurgitate their "findings") have been shown to decide ahead of time what their research will find and use methodologies they know are dubious but will inflate the levels of female victimhood to the point of hyperbole. Not to mention erase male victims like they did with DV FOR HALF A CENTURY!
4) The jobs men enter tend to require a higher level of sacrifice and risk and the market has to take that into account.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
1) This is just more of the same which I have addressed a difference in earnings does not an injustice make. Staying longer hours kind of seems like EARNING something.
"Apples to apples. Okay. Well, in which case, I actually have a question for you. How do you like these apples?"
Identical resumes, except some had the name John on top, and some had the name Jennifer. The ones with the name John were rated more favourably, and offered, on average, $4000 more.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Grant-John Oliver of the daily show where they had the disgraced Duke Lacrosse team prosecutor come on and they actually presented him as a hero who was right all along who spouts feminist BS every chance he gets, ummm no sorry I'll stick with reality thank you.
One of the many problems with the feminist narrative is that men are no less socialized then women in our society and if as feminists claim men's much higher premature mortality rate is a result of that why should we possibly devote all our time and resources to women's issues. Death seems like a much worse injustice then being underpaid. Feminists will take any evidence they get and twist it to make women victims because then they can have women's interests put first, it's just rabid female tribalism. Sorry you were duped.
Tribalism-the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group.
Duped-deceived; tricked.
You do realize your defending the losing side here too, right? Game journalists/publishers are now issueing apologies, people are getting fired, advertisers are dumping the SJW sites like a hot potato, a criminal investigation of one group is starting. #Gamergate won.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
Grant-John Oliver of the daily show where they had the disgraced Duke Lacrosse team prosecutor come on and they actually presented him as a hero who was right all along who spouts feminist BS every chance he gets, ummm no sorry I'll stick with reality thank you.
You do realize your defending the losing side here too, right? Game journalists/publishers are now issueing apologies, people are getting fired, advertisers are dumping the SJW sites like a hot potato, a criminal investigation of one group is starting. #Gamergate won.
If your posts are any indication, it wouldn't matter if we were defending the winning side: Such as the side that says men and women should be paid the same for equal work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What's the big deal? You could have played multiple Righteous Avengers for years now.
LordOwlington-Feminists control and have corrupted every institution in our society. You do realize feminists are only pushing this wage gap BS so that women will be payed MORE for the same work right? Men and womens lifestyle choices are why there is a lifetime earnings gap and feminists are sure as hell not going to push for women to give that up especially since it leads to women being happier and healthier. Heres an example of the tortured logic feminists will use http://vimeo.com/105476725. Greer is right in that true gender equality would be a loss of the things women value highly thus this lopsided "women are oppressed by gender roles BUT NOT MEN!" nonsense. I have even spoken to a writer as double X who admits feminists are worried about the ERA as it would mean an enormous loss for women, did you seriously believe some random country mom scuttled the whole thing?
Fun fact-Did you know in one country feminists have already successfully legislated higher pay for the same work for women, women are paid 2% more for the same work as men by law.
The tortured logic goes something like this, men (Not any men alive today mind you) created society therefore women are always the victim and thus can redefine what's fair at anytime they want as often as they want as unfairly as they want cause always the victim. It is about as reasonable as someone shrieking "I didn't ask to be born" when told they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
As far as the gender gap in mortality goes, it's apparently a complicated issue with social and biological reasons. As the gap exists at birth it can't be entirely lifestyle based.
However, the other two links do point out that mortality is significantly influenced by lifestyle, with drinking, smoking and heart attacks all killing more men on average. Interestingly, men also don't go to the doctor as often or as soon as women do, on average.
However, while women do live longer on average, they also appear to have higher morbidity, living with a greater rate of non-lethal complaints for a longer period of time. On average women also pay more for medical costs (this specific link implies domestic violence is involved).
While we're bringing in new and mostly unrelated arguments, I'll point out that female fetuses also suffer sexselectiveabortion due to social structures that devalue women.
The goalpost for me has not changed, that feminism is BS and that naturally their involvement in gamergate is the spreading of BS. I see no point in doing the work of posting sources that will be dismissed as part of a white male conspiracy but since you asked heres something addressing the wage gap...http://permutationofninjas.org/post/21542975783/the-wage-gap-that-isnt
at the bottom of the page are links, what else do you want?
As far as the gender gap in mortality goes, it's apparently a complicated issue with social and biological reasons. As the gap exists at birth it can't be entirely lifestyle based.
So biological determinism and victim blaming are A OK! It is no more complicated then the wage gap.
However, while women do live longer on average, they also appear to have higher morbidity, living with a greater rate of non-lethal complaints for a longer period of time. On average women also pay more for medical costs (this specific link implies domestic violence is involved).
Sounds like women pay more because they GET MORE medical care. Considering male victims of DV are systematically erased by the feminist lens DV is viewed through umm this is an especially lame attempt to tug on the ol' shame leash.
While we're bringing in new and mostly unrelated arguments, I'll point out that female fetuses also suffer sex selective abortion due to social structures that devalue women.
In cultures where men are legally and culturely forced to support their parents, think there is a connection? Sounds like a female privilege backfiring.
As humans, we have a tendency to cling to ideologies. Any positive set of beliefs can quickly turn malevolent once treated as ideology and not an honest intellectual or experiential pursuit of greater truth. Ideology does in entire economic systems and countries, causes religions to massacre thousands, turns human rights movements into authoritarian sects and makes fools out of humanity’s most brilliant minds. Einstein famously wasted the second half of his career trying to calculate a cosmological constant that didn’t exist because “God doesn’t play dice.”
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Right, and this isn't all that different from the Sorceress, with whose given attire you wouldn't expect much more than some random swamp witch who can't do more than make potions, ride a broom, or turn someone into a frog. Incidentally, she is also capable of doing at least two-thirds of those.
I already did. She's the healer and protector, with obvious caretaker qualities, but she's also a destructive force to be reckoned with. There is a slant towards nature in her skills as much as there is a slant towards unlife with a focus on the "life" part of that word. Hence, "mother goddess" archetype. Without going into a dissertation (it IS a beat 'em up after all, so you just take what you have and go from there), I'm just laying her out with all details on the table rather than just one or two. Considering also that while this is a videogame made in the 21st century, that it is also a videogame that has brought up artistic references from multiple different sources across the tapestry of past human eras, I am fairly certain that Kamitani not only did the research, but also decided to be creative about it with regards to the Sorceress.
Poison Ivy, on the other hand, is blatantly a villainous, psychopathic ecoterrorist most of the time. Not at all heroic like the Sorceress is. Sure, Ivy might allude herself as being in line with the "mother goddess" archetype, but given her setting, that's as much the self-delusion typical of an Arkham resident as it is founded in reality. Although there have been attempts to bring her on that track in a genuine fashion, I think. That really boils down to the particular comic book writer and/or artist.
In my opinion, it is okay to emphasize the Sorceress's attractiveness to reinforce it further. Hell, she might be doing it specifically to taunt an opponent, since seduction is a flexible tool. And really, it's okay to emphasize one aspect over another. It's okay to not act like a prude. Hell, it's okay to act the opposite of a prude. I just don't consider her absurd at all, as I've met people with her body shape before (one of the married women I knew, enjoyed using the Sorceress for being a character so unabashedly similar to her in form) and I like to think I see what else Kamitani was going for in her pose. So I guess the complaint just never is much of one, to me. Whether it's based on her attractiveness or her posture.
Also, the appropriateness of a portrayal can change when you're looking at just one take of the same character between multiple viewpoints.
It does boil down to whether one thinks that details are expressed well enough. The difference between us is, after playing the game, I think my viewpoint is perfectly valid. If you've played the game too and you maintain your viewpoint that it's not expressed well enough, that's valid too. The existence of evidence "for" or "against" is contextually relative, and in this case, I argue it's a beat 'em up so you can only fit so many details in at once before artistic expression becomes cumbersomely clogged up. If you think that's not a good enough excuse, well alright.
Hidetsugu - Combo Damage
Ezuri - Elfball
Theorycrafting:
Selvala - "A hunter must hunt."
Selvala - Budget
Are you telling me you don't sympathize at all with the fact that the warrior nun is in pain and is having her leg bitten off? I've already explained the reason for her posture, and honestly, if you do pay attention to her crotch area first, it is notable that she has a chastity belt on, reinforcing the whole purity thing she has going on as a nun. As for the Bound Spirit, I actually consider her a representation of patriarchal oppression, as she's been imprisoned there by a coven of entirely male mages led by an old, male warlock.
There's reasons for much of the NPCs, including that girl stuck to the pole. In the quest blurb accompanying that picture, she's actually chained there as a sacrifice for the Red Dragon. Not there "just" to look sexy, at all.
I didn't dismiss it. I said it's repetition of the same design and I'm not sure it should really count towards a ratio of sexualized:nonsexualized designs as it's basically just Cammy and then three (or more, depending on if you take sources outside the videogames or not) copypastings of her. Save Decapre, they don't really have distinct personalities either. Which makes the whole thing more sinister, than anything. Also, Ingrid is not originally a Street Fighter design so I don't think you can blame her legginess (which doesn't compare at all to Chun-Li) on the original SF developers, or even the modern ones. She's a crossover character from Capcom Fighting Jam.
Also, I only said the Poison thing as a joke I couldn't resist, as watching Austin Powers with my dad was one of my fondest film memories. That said, she does identify as a female, but she's also Hugo's wrestling manager. Besides the fact that her outfit is a legacy of the 90's, it, like R. Mika, is probably just in keeping with motifs of the wrestling scene.
I don't have a defense for how and why they handled Poison, though. That does kinda reek of sexism, but those were times when we thought putting a leg... collar... thing, on Superboy's leg, was a good idea.
Hidetsugu - Combo Damage
Ezuri - Elfball
Theorycrafting:
Selvala - "A hunter must hunt."
Selvala - Budget
Do you see how you have to try to convince us that destruction and undeath are somehow part of the mother goddess archetype? That means they're not working as symbols on their own. This is what I mean when I say you're stretching.
Oh, hey, it's almost like Ivy is a multidimensional character! And what was it you were saying earlier? About "progression"?
...she does it just walking down an empty hallway.
Show me one. Find one unaltered picture of an unaltered woman with those proportions. (A SFW picture, obviously, but I don't think you'd have much better luck with pornography anyway.)
No. Like I said, even if the details are there, they don't alter the complaint that she looks ridiculous. She doesn't become less ridiculous if she's also a subtle mother figure and whatnot. The two artistic issues stand independent of each other.
That's not what he said. He said that this fantasy is juvenile.
You know you're just digging the hole deeper, right? The sexualization of women in such unsexual - indeed, anti-sexual - situations is exploitative and fetishistic. And the patriarchy element of the story doesn't make the sexualization go away; it just makes the sexualization hypocritical. "Shame on those dirty old men for keeping a woman in bondage, robbing her of her independence and using her as an object for their own pleasures... now check out those gazongas, guys!"
In exploitation fiction, there are always reasons for the women to be displayed sexually. The sexiness is the goal; the reasons are just excuses. And they seldom completely justify the sexiness, anyway: nothing about the dragon-sacrifice plot requires this woman to be buxom, scantily-clad, sitting with her arms raised, back arched, and legs splayed. All those aspects of the picture are there for the male audience.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not everything needs to. Sympathetic, dramatic, or comedic effect are not the only things that need to be evoked in art.
I don't need to convince you as death and destruction have literally been part of the "mother goddess" archetype since time immemorial. I know Wikipedia is kind of laughable as a source, but honestly, there it is. The reason I keep repeating myself is not because I'm trying to stretch, but because that's what it is.
Um... No? Ivy takes one of two notes in the binary track of an average Arkham resident.
She oscillates between the two with a distinct slant towards the latter. In other words, she's just a flavor of crazy to the point of almost being a Villain of the Week, depending.
I think "multidimensional character" would better fit Selina Kyle, who has gone through more than enough growth that some of it's actually stuck, and she's shown her fair share of being a maternal character whereas Ivy's usually more full-on insane and one gets the feeling she treats her plants as pets more than children at times. Compare to Sorceress who can actively protect her own "children" with attacks and defensive spells.
Also, you're misconstruing what I mean by "progression." I don't mean "character progression" but "conceptual progresion."
The simple act of walking is seductive? It's not like she's moving like she's on a catwalk for her regular animation. And hell, she does it with shoes that aren't high heels. That's pretty atypical of many recent fantasy entries, West and East. (coughwitcher3ciricough)
Here you go, dude.
I would've posted a picture of the married ladies I know, but as this is a #Gamergate discussion, and people have been getting doxxed and harassed for less than just pictures (including two minors, recently!), I'd really rather not. We can avoid more misogynists and haters, that way. Also, such women tend to be somewhat less uncommon in SoCal, in my experience.
Again, I must reiterate that I don't think her all that ridiculous.
I can only assume that if anyone else were this attractive in another work, A Guy would find them "juvenile" too. If I'm wrong, let me know.
It makes no sense to dodge the extent of how exploitive the patriarchy can be if you don't show it, especially with a game as rich in its artwork as Dragon's Crown can be. Otherwise the art has less force to it, misinterpreted as it can be or not, or whether it can 'trigger' people or not. And Tiki the Fairy disapproves greatly of you poking her further, not to mention you're actively pissing off other players who want to get on with the game. So you do get judged and prodded by both the game and the community itself.
Not that there's anything intrinsically wrong with being buxom, but if you were after the dragon-sacrifice plot on its own, maybe. However note also that this is also a reference to how cultures in general told of ritual sacrifice. Often they were young, attractive women, and the fact that the woman in the picture is of Greek-ish dress is an allusion to that. As for posture, well.. I'm pretty sure she hears the damned Gildiss-expy coming, which is why she's sitting up and perhaps trying to stand.
Hidetsugu - Combo Damage
Ezuri - Elfball
Theorycrafting:
Selvala - "A hunter must hunt."
Selvala - Budget
The sorceress' suite of spells is utterly generic D&D-style wizard magic. By your logic, Raistlin is a mother figure. So no, there's nothing distinctively maternal about her abilities. Even granting that destruction is in the domain of some ancient mother goddesses, that is (again) not a live symbol in our culture, and simply being able to destroy things would not connect a character to that domain even if it were.
Both Ivy and the sorceress protect their creations with attacks and defensive spells/abilities. And of the two of them, only Ivy actually calls her creations "children", is shown to spend her free time nurturing them, and has their protection as a primary character motive. Where, in Dragon's Crown, does the sorceress ever get pissed off because someone hurt one of her skeletons? And skeletons are very strong cultural symbols of death, whereas plants are strong cultural symbols of life.
Yes, her regular walking animation is absolutely a catwalk strut. That she's wearing flats is a pretty meager defense to the charge. "At least her feet aren't oversexualized!" Whatever. And saying that other games also oversexualize their female characters is no defense either - it's not like people are only complaining about Dragon's Crown.
Smaller breasts, wider waist, forced perspective exaggerates their apparent sizes, Photoshop may even have gotten involved. Yes, she's well endowed; no, she doesn't compare to Kamitani's art. The parallel sketch of the sorceress is a bit of a cheat - it's considerably more modestly proportioned than the character as she actually appears in the game.
Yes, that's why I asked for a pic from the internet.
There you go making assumptions again...
There is a difference between showing the exploitation and participating in it. Dragon's Crown participates in the exploitation by displaying these exploited women as sexual, titillating objects. It glamorizes their situation. To show the exploitation would be to pull back that veil of glamor and convey to the audience their sadness, fear, and desperation. The spirit would not be in a languid odalisque pose that says clear as a neon sign "I want sex". She would be in a tense, combative position, or perhaps curled up trying to protect herself and her modesty, or really anything else.
Now, maybe you'll say that she's lying down because she's exhausted by what the mages are doing to her, or pull some other excuse out of nowhere. Like I said, there are always excuses in exploitation fiction. They don't change what the final product looks like, and was clearly always intended to look like. There is absolutely no chance that Kamitani sat down, reasoned through all the story developments, and drew the result impartially, and it just happened to look like an odalisque. He wanted to draw an odalisque from the beginning.
Sigh. In how many games are players given the opportunity to poke beautiful captive women (who wiggle suggestively and make sexual noises) at all?
Make all the excuses you want. Again, they're just excuses.
PS: The dress is no more Greek than Kamitani is.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I contend that it is perfectly possible to draw an attractive young woman being menaced by a dragon in such a way that either the dragon, or the woman, or both, draw the eye, and not just the woman's breasts. To choose to make the woman's breasts the focus, above all else, is unnecessary sexualisation. If the breasts were smaller, but the posture the same, the comments would still be made (c.f. Avengers posing). I'm almost surprised they haven't twisted her around so you could see her buttocks as well. I'm sure they could find a 'reason' for that.
Maybe that, but also a lot more, I think.
Sure, until you realize they're almost all either nature-based on steeped in classical witch tales.
Could you explain, as I haven't read Dragonlance?
Growing food from the very earth doesn't draw from the "mother goddess" archetype? Actively protecting both her children and her teammates alike isn't drawing from the "mother goddess" archetype? Being an apparent (exaggerated?) symbol of fertility breathing life into that which has passed, isn't drawing from the "mother goddess" archetype? Having the elements at her beck and call doesn't draw from the "mother goddess" archetype?
This might be a reasonable inference if Kamitani hadn't actively been drawing from the older ideas from human history. See the link I provided about Dragon's Crown's artistic references.
No matter how much Ivy moans and groans about the loss of her plants, she's still weaponizing purely for immediate destruction. "Life" is technically something of a tangential concern for her in its immediacy because she's primarily an ecoterrorist almost at the exclusion of everything else, no matter what her end goal is.
And Sorceress does plenty of nurturing, but because this is a videogame, Kamitani has decided to show that through actual gameplay and what kind of skills the Sorceress is often using. Instead of taking the "tell" approach, he takes the "show" approach because that's just the natural and best way to go with videogames.
Uh, no. I wasn't using it as a defense, I was merely point it out as an aside. There's no need to act so dismissive on such a minor detail I wasn't even using as a real argument. Same with the mention of Witcher 3. I am simply questioning the idea that her walking animation isn't anything other than a regular walk. It's not like she's putting one foot directly ahead of the other and then stopping to pose, or anything like that, as I've seen in many fashion shows.
I think you're nitpicking something that is actually pretty close, personally. I actually think the sketch isn't as good a matchup to the actual woman, in the first place. Furthermore, you didn't ask for exact proportions, and I wouldn't ask you to, say, give me a 1-1 in-reality representation of the Fighter. Even then, it wouldn't be exact. I think it's fairer to settle for close enough, and anything else would be almost akin to a moving goalpost.
Looks like we were both on the same page! Cool.
What you call assumption, I call reasonable inference. Soon as he clarifies, I'll rescind the statement if need be. I just find it hard to believe he wouldn't find anything else of potentially similar ilk, juvenile.
Glamorizing in what way? Because they're attractive, it's glamorizing? There's nothing positive about how she's portrayed, and she has the sullen look of a person who isn't quite glad to see you, because she's likely already been through a lot. I don't, at all, read "I want sex" anywhere in that at all. Furthermore, she is a Spirit; modesty may not mean as much to her as it does to the average human, but I think there is determination in her gaze and absolutely nothing playful. Fiction doesn't have to equate to reality all the time, you know. Plus, you're playing the heroes. Perhaps she picked up on that and is acting less protective of herself as a result.
Whether or not Kamitani drew from odalisques as an inspiration, I don't believe it is a full-on odalisque myself. There are too many other factors.
Not many, so we're going into unexplored territory. Unexplored territory that we receive in-game condemnation for. And I think moaning because you're picking on her in that way is a natural reaction, and something you probably shouldn't be doing.
"Reasoning for the art being the way it is" are excuses?
Some people just can't help having large, eye-catching breasts. And I'd argue the focus is less on those and more on the expressive distress of the woman in question. Her being shapely is just another nod to prior such situations in Western fantasy, which makes perfect sense in a game that is designed to recount Western fantasy across the ages rather than being locked to certain sensibilities in the 21st century. It's not something special to Dragon's Crown, but perhaps such a situation, despite being a classic fantasy trope, is indeed endemic of sexualization and maybe even sexism. At the very least, I don't think there was any sinister and expressly exploitive intent, or otherwise they might have Rob Liefelded her like you suggested, Grant.
While there is personal bias attributed to the "significance" of "reasons" in art, or details in art, it doesn't stop those reasons or details from being there.
Hidetsugu - Combo Damage
Ezuri - Elfball
Theorycrafting:
Selvala - "A hunter must hunt."
Selvala - Budget
Also the dog's head is severed.
It is impossible not to pay attention to her crotch area first, dude. It's centered in the shot, and the camera perspective makes it bigger than her head.
No, point of order: literal chastity belts have nothing to do with nuns and purity. In fact, they were only commonly used in the 19th century as a form of anti-masturbation device, primarily for children, as it was believed at the time that masturbation caused insanity.
So if you see one in a modern context, it is most likely either a parody of an erroneous belief about crusade era practices that didn't happen, see also Robin Hood: Men in Tights, or it's bondage porn. Clearly this is the second.
Not much to explain, really. Raistlin uses death and destruction magic, therefore Raistlin is a mother figure.
No. She is a sex doll with levels in wizard. Rephrasing standard wizard spells to sound more maternal doesn't actually make them more maternal.
Symbolically, her skeletons represent death. Mechanically, they are expendable meat-shields. Kamitani is showing us a stock necromancer character, nothing more.
That is not how human beings walk. They don't move their arms like that, they don't move their hips like that, they definitely don't move their chests like that.
No. That is not okay. You don't get to set up whatever straw men you want and then just back off on them. You have a responsibility to get it right from the beginning.
Because they're attractive, in sexual costumes, in sexual poses, making sexual noises, framed to maximize and emphasize the sexual assets on display, in warm inviting light... I could go on.
Heavy-lidded eyes, pursed lips, flushed cheeks, head turned down and away slightly: it's the classic "come-hither" look. At this point I can only say that you are displaying staggering levels of denial.
See above re: excuses.
The designers of this game, unlike so many other games, have thoughtfully provided the player with an opportunity to grope a half-naked woman they just found chained up. No, a moan of pleasure is not, not, not, not a natural reaction for a woman in that situation - I cannot stress that enough. And what you call the game's "condemnation" consists solely of the line "Tiki is not-so-subtly judging you"; they could have written the same line if Tiki just caught you with a sex toy. This is sexual assault, and the game is treating it like kinky fun hijinks.
The way you're doing it? Emphatically yes. You are groping for any reason not to have to acknowledge the obvious: Kamitani drew a whole lot of fanservice for this game.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It's actually kind of funny. Source: her ex's tumblr
Art is life itself.
Those are pretty broad criteria, and I think you could just about shoehorn the Christian God into them.
Indeed. But artists can help what they draw.
And a world of no. The focus of the piece is the breasts. I'm not reading anything into it; I don't _have_ to. The breasts are front and centre in the image, the dragon and her face are placed secondarily. As for expressive distress? Hardly. Her face has an expression of mild surprise, she's not cowering nor shrinking back. There may not have been sinister intent, but I suspect very strongly that there was intent to exploit.
While there is personal bias attributed to the "significance" of "reasons" in art, or details in art, it doesn't stop those reasons or details from being there.[/quote]
Also, the whole link to BDSM is fairly closer to recent times than one of the original reasons of having a chastity belt, which was to prevent rape or intercourse. And nuns, especially of the fairly important demon-fighting warrior type, are encouraged not to do the latter, hence the addition of it.
Not everyone who has nature-related capabilities needs to be a Druid, or a Wiccan, or what have you. All I'm saying is, the Sorceress both draws heavily from the "mother goddess" archetype and turns it on its head at the same time, serving as a separate interpretation on her own.
This is an oversimplificaiton of the "mother goddess" archetype. Where's the life-related symbolism? Where's the paternal relationship with others? Where's the overarching feeling or theme that he's doing things to take care of others? Can't have destruction without the creation, or else it's just pure force. If you can tell me about Raistlin being a father figure or having a fatherly role, twist or otherwise, with an overarching theme in creation as well as destruction integrated full well into his capabilities like the Sorceress, then yeah I'd buy it. But if not, then I think he's probably more reasonably compared to the Wizard, who is death and destruction in his spell set and demeanor, with hardly any sense of warmth and recovery to him at all.
Symbolically, her skeletons together with her represent unity of life and death. Mechanically, she is capable of protecting them through all sorts of ways (see: Gravity spell, Ice Prison spell, Blizzard spell, Protection shielding spell). That you perceive or interpret less than that is your own conscious decision.
Honestly, to me the Sorceress is moving like she's ready for adventure, and fluidity in motion just goes with her shape.
I am also a human capable of making mistakes. I'm not a robot; if my logic or line of thinking is faulty, please point it out.
Again, matter of interpretation, and your's in particular relies too much on pure visual clues that may be on their own misinterpreted, not to mention that they don't take into account what's actually happening in-game.
Features that explain something closer to a tired, but determined individual who is showing some slight embarrassment to the heroes about her predicament, I think. If it were "come-hither" she'd probably look coyer instead of annoyed.
Well, why not? Christianity borrows from a whole lot of things in the first place.
Sure. I never said Kamitani and Shigatake didn't have the responsibility for what they draw.
She's in tears, man. She knows what's coming. But she sits up straight because she knows it's the end and has resolved herself to meet her fate. Per the quest linked to that piece of art, that's a Princess who is sacrificing her life to the Red Dragon in order to keep its favor, which is a throwback to the whole Saint George thing, except no Saint George. She ends up being revered as a goddess and worship of her brings the ire of the world's main religious faith.
Attractiveness was strictly secondary in all that, I think.
And see, that's the thing. We're pretty entrenched in our views to the point that there's all these oversimplifications, misinterpretaions, and so forth, and all we're doing at this point is going in circles. I offer an alternate viewpoint of many elements of Dragon's Crown, nothing more, nothing else. At this point, I'm fairly certain I can't convince you guys, but that doesn't mean I concede my points.
However, this will be the last time I post with regard to Dragon's Crown. I personally think it's a work of art that serves as perhaps one of the greatest testaments to Western fantasy every created, even if it's "just a videogame" and is loaded with female pulchritude. Hell, it's not like I don't think there's an oversaturation of attractiveness, male or female; the one thing I think was missing from Dragon's Crown was figures and individuals who had less than ideal appearances but were also heroic. Though I guess that's not surprising considering what it's drawing from, but even though it's not perfect, I'm willing to acknowledge that the pulchritude has purpose beyond titillation and that the experience of the whole game was one of the best ones I've had in the past few years.
And I guess that's all I have left to say on the matter.
Back to the main #Gamergate stuff...
Though the discussion of #Gamergate has moved past her, that is is very cool of her, and should keep any further accusations of that debacle with Wizardchan off her back.
There was also that whole thing with Jennifer Hale getting on Marketplace Tech. I'm glad she didn't go for the loaded questions, as that makes her a cool head on the side of Social Justice even to both sides of this debate.
Hidetsugu - Combo Damage
Ezuri - Elfball
Theorycrafting:
Selvala - "A hunter must hunt."
Selvala - Budget
Since I've been arguing consistently that you have misinterpreted the art throughout this conversation, it should be pretty clear which option I think is the correct one. If you agree, we only differ on which one of us did the misinterpreting. So who was it, you or me? I've made my case; let's look at yours. It's... baffling. You say that my interpretation relies too much on visual cues. In a visual medium. After repeatedly and effusively praising Kamigani as a visual artist. It may surprise you to learn that visual cues are of paramount importance here. If there is a mismatch between the visual cues and the narrative, the cues leading the audience one way and the narrative another way, then the problem isn't that the audience is misinterpreting the art; the problem is that the art is dissonant. The narrative tells that the spirit is a victim of horrible abuse, but the visual shows that she is a healthy, desirable, and willing sex partner. Artist's fault, not the audience's.
Now, you're right that narratives and other context in art can change the meaning of a visual. But here, with this art, you're not asking me to modify my interpretation of the art by taking into account both the visual and the narrative. Rather, you're asking me to disregard the visual, to believe your explanations that the overtly sexual cues in these images are not really there but just a series of increasingly implausible coincidences: all of these women just happen to be impossibly gorgeous, the expression on the spirit's face just happens to look like bedroom eyes, the dragon sacrifice just happens to be arching her back to display her huge breasts, the nun just happens to be spreading her legs to put her crotch prominently at the center of the field of view. And your explanations wouldn't work even if the coincidences were plausible. That is emphatically not what women in distress look like. Just as one last example, if our Andromeda figure is really frightened of the dragon, she should show it in her body language by tensing her muscles and recoiling as far as possible to the right. The balanced pose we actually see is consistent with submissive bondage play, not the unbalancing situation we are supposed to believe she is in. Again: dissonance between visual and narrative.
So, there is dissonance between visual and narrative, and you want me to disregard the visual... but might you on the same grounds complain that I want you to disregard the narrative? That does seem to be the heart of your argument. Now, I could defend the significance of the visual over the narrative, pointing out again that this is a primarily visual medium, and invoking the principle of "show, don't tell". But I don't have to, because in fact I am not asking you to disregard the narrative the same way you're asking me to disregard the visual. Your theory of the art chalks the sexual cues up to coincidence; my theory of the art actually accounts for narrative. Like I said, I agree that Kamitani is a competent visual artist, competent enough to know what a woman in distress looks like as opposed to what a woman ready for sexy fun time looks like. It does not make sense to believe that he set out to draw the former and mistakenly, by happenstance, ended up with the latter - multiple times. However, it does make sense to believe that he set out to draw the latter and then went looking for narrative reasons to excuse it. I'm not even opposed in principle to people doing this. Porn exists, and that's perfectly fine. The problem here is that the narrative Kamitani chose for his porn is jarringly, even disturbingly dissonant: going beyond its failure on the purely artistic level, it is to say the least not good to depict victimized women as sexually gratifying.
And the other problem, of course, is that diehard fans refuse to see this, and will engage in elaborate mental gymnastics not to have to do so. Think about it. Of the two of us, I've got no reason to want to defame the game - I actually think it's superbly crafted - whereas you clearly have an emotional investment in praising it. So my final advice to you is to step back and ask yourself if that might be affecting your judgment. Don't be that guy who thinks he has to defend Mickey Rooney's role in Breakfast at Tiffany's. You can do better than that.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Some group will always technically meet that criteria (envy =/= moral outrage). As for unequal systems and the gender wage gap we have discused that on MTG debate forums before, women and men making different lifestyle choices (of which women who make the same choices as men do the same) it seems quite dishonest to present that as an injustice against women if even an injustice at all. Seriously men on average work more hours then women how the hell is it unjust for them to have bigger paychecks as a result (note-I believe women have agency of their own).
1) Women and men doing the same job often get paid differently: on average women are paid less for the same work. This may be because companies tend to be fairly inflexible, and pay proportionally more to people who spend longer chunks of time in the studio (however, see points 2 & 3). "Crunch" is a game-industry specific example of this: stay super long hours near cycle's end and you get to keep your job (plus overtime pay).
2) There's such a thing as constrained free will, and someone leaving an industry due to repeated threats & harassment to take a more acceptably feminine job doesn't help your case (see point 3). #Gamergate hounding female writers out of the industry is a live example of that.
3) Continuing constrained free will: women are generally encouraged to leave and have kids, which cuts into overall time spent working. Interestingly, men with children are seen as more responsible and tend to be promoted further, while women who have given birth are seen as less capable of working and may be fired or kept in less demanding jobs (also see points 1 and 2).
4) I'm not sure how tied this is to videogames, but acceptably feminine jobs tend to pay less. That's kind of a chicken/egg situation but it ties to points 2 and 3 so I'm including it.
Edited to add linked sources.
Art is life itself.
To me it seems quite dishonest to present 77 cents as equal to a dollar. Especially when comparing base hourly pay which is not dependent on number of hours worked. Not only that, but working fewer hours is yet another injustice, which not only does not explain the first injustice but rather compounds it.
2) An appeal to emotion and a version of gamergate squarely at odds with reality, hell even a radical feminist organizations representative was calling dismissing the complaints about the gaming industry as mysoginy BS. The truth is everyone in the spotlight receives threats and to try to use that to derail the conversation and take it into SJ fantasy land isn't going to work. You should check out #NotYourShield.
3) Another appeal to emotion. Having a child is a choice (well it is for women it's a consequence for men-sometimes even males who are raped and threatened with jail time for being unable to pay child support, which is kind of tricky when you are 14). There's an interesting Swedish documentary on that countries gender research center that so effectively demonstrated that it was just a front for manufacturing feminist agitator propaganda (aka bull*****) that the government defunded it. Feminist researchers (of which your sources regurgitate their "findings") have been shown to decide ahead of time what their research will find and use methodologies they know are dubious but will inflate the levels of female victimhood to the point of hyperbole. Not to mention erase male victims like they did with DV FOR HALF A CENTURY!
4) The jobs men enter tend to require a higher level of sacrifice and risk and the market has to take that into account.
Women are responsible for who they have sex with even when raped, but not men.
Also, since when are statistics appeals to emotion?
Art is life itself.
Since I just saw this this morning: John Oliver on the wage gap.
"Apples to apples. Okay. Well, in which case, I actually have a question for you. How do you like these apples?"
Identical resumes, except some had the name John on top, and some had the name Jennifer. The ones with the name John were rated more favourably, and offered, on average, $4000 more.
http://whatculture.com/gaming/10-lessons-the-gaming-industry-must-learn-from-gamergate.php/2
Grant-John Oliver of the daily show where they had the disgraced Duke Lacrosse team prosecutor come on and they actually presented him as a hero who was right all along who spouts feminist BS every chance he gets, ummm no sorry I'll stick with reality thank you.
One of the many problems with the feminist narrative is that men are no less socialized then women in our society and if as feminists claim men's much higher premature mortality rate is a result of that why should we possibly devote all our time and resources to women's issues. Death seems like a much worse injustice then being underpaid. Feminists will take any evidence they get and twist it to make women victims because then they can have women's interests put first, it's just rabid female tribalism. Sorry you were duped.
Tribalism-the behavior and attitudes that stem from strong loyalty to one's own tribe or social group.
Duped-deceived; tricked.
You do realize your defending the losing side here too, right? Game journalists/publishers are now issueing apologies, people are getting fired, advertisers are dumping the SJW sites like a hot potato, a criminal investigation of one group is starting. #Gamergate won.
It was a study from Yale,but go on and hand wave it away.
If your posts are any indication, it wouldn't matter if we were defending the winning side: Such as the side that says men and women should be paid the same for equal work.
Fun fact-Did you know in one country feminists have already successfully legislated higher pay for the same work for women, women are paid 2% more for the same work as men by law.
The tortured logic goes something like this, men (Not any men alive today mind you) created society therefore women are always the victim and thus can redefine what's fair at anytime they want as often as they want as unfairly as they want cause always the victim. It is about as reasonable as someone shrieking "I didn't ask to be born" when told they have to play by the same rules as everyone else.
As far as the gender gap in mortality goes, it's apparently a complicated issue with social and biological reasons. As the gap exists at birth it can't be entirely lifestyle based.
However, the other two links do point out that mortality is significantly influenced by lifestyle, with drinking, smoking and heart attacks all killing more men on average. Interestingly, men also don't go to the doctor as often or as soon as women do, on average.
However, while women do live longer on average, they also appear to have higher morbidity, living with a greater rate of non-lethal complaints for a longer period of time. On average women also pay more for medical costs (this specific link implies domestic violence is involved).
While we're bringing in new and mostly unrelated arguments, I'll point out that female fetuses also suffer sex selective abortion due to social structures that devalue women.
Art is life itself.
at the bottom of the page are links, what else do you want?
So biological determinism and victim blaming are A OK! It is no more complicated then the wage gap.
Sounds like women pay more because they GET MORE medical care. Considering male victims of DV are systematically erased by the feminist lens DV is viewed through umm this is an especially lame attempt to tug on the ol' shame leash.
In cultures where men are legally and culturely forced to support their parents, think there is a connection? Sounds like a female privilege backfiring.
Infraction for trolling. - Blinking Spirit