Skullgirls and Sexism
- Thread starter Grahav
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just finished reading the entire web page (I think). Really interesting read. Thanks.Toriver said:
Nobody here is saying they don't have a right to do that.
Jiggle physics is just sorely overdone in fighting games, and honestly, kinda sexist.
I'm kind of, rather hoping right now that they make Bloody Marie along with Peacock an exception to the jiggle rule.
It's not sexist to ever have jiggling breasts in a video game. Hardly anybody is saying that. But come on, we've had enough of that in video games and it's time for a break.
Jiggle physics is just sorely overdone in fighting games, and honestly, kinda sexist.
I'm kind of, rather hoping right now that they make Bloody Marie along with Peacock an exception to the jiggle rule.
It's not sexist to ever have jiggling breasts in a video game. Hardly anybody is saying that. But come on, we've had enough of that in video games and it's time for a break.
I wouldn't say it's sexist, but you can clearly see which demographic they're aiming the game at.
HINT: It's the same demographic pretty much every other game is aimed at.
HINT: It's the same demographic pretty much every other game is aimed at.
And that's what's sexist.
That most games are designed for the sexual tastes of the typical heterosexual male.
That most games are designed for the sexual tastes of the typical heterosexual male.
not every character in Skullgirls has jiggle physics. there are sexy characters and non-sexy characters.LilithSlave said:
most guys like breasts, some women like breasts, lots of people like breasts. in a self-indulgent, willfully silly game like Skullgirls it's not out of place as long as there's still character variety.
Yeah, like one or maybe two of them.
Enough of that already. It's time to let the sexist tendency die. There's enough pandering material for breast fetishists out there already.
Oh, gee! Then we can't not have a single video game not cater to that! That wouldn't be unfair at all!busterbeam said:
Enough of that already. It's time to let the sexist tendency die. There's enough pandering material for breast fetishists out there already.
I remember Moviebob mentioning how women are constantly posed to be as sexy as possible while males have a purpose for their pose. With the exception of that woman with the gun and the umbrella thing and (possibly) the nurse, I'm not seeing much of that. The one with the mask looks like a demon, the one with the detached head looks psychotic, String-Arms looks even more psychotic, Head-Arms looks a little eager to use those giant arms of hers and not in a good way, and the one at the very bottom looks a bit like an assassin with a bared midriff that took me ages to find.
It's ironic because the people who are making a big deal about this are the real sexists.
a truely non-sexist person would be indifferent to the fact that these female characters are showing a little bit of skin = \
Do you guys get bent out of shape when you see women dressing a little lightly in the summer months? "OMG you're the product of a male centric society and are objectifying yourselves 0____0"
no... at least I'd hope not.
The fact of the matter is, most females don't want to be treated so differently from men; they don't want to be held up on a pedestal, they want to be independant, they want to be able to look sexy without being demonized for it, they want to pay for dates sometimes. Is it really such a coincidence that only guys are making a big deal out of this?
And why aren't yaoi obsessed fan-girls (or boys) considered sexist? that's sort of an annoying double standard.
a truely non-sexist person would be indifferent to the fact that these female characters are showing a little bit of skin = \
Do you guys get bent out of shape when you see women dressing a little lightly in the summer months? "OMG you're the product of a male centric society and are objectifying yourselves 0____0"
no... at least I'd hope not.
The fact of the matter is, most females don't want to be treated so differently from men; they don't want to be held up on a pedestal, they want to be independant, they want to be able to look sexy without being demonized for it, they want to pay for dates sometimes. Is it really such a coincidence that only guys are making a big deal out of this?
And why aren't yaoi obsessed fan-girls (or boys) considered sexist? that's sort of an annoying double standard.
Kopikatsu said:
But Parasoul is clearly drawn to look sexy. You're not going to pretend that tiny skirt isn't there for that purpose are you?LilithSlave said:
Skullgirls will be sexist when Guile, Ryu, Ken, Twilight, the Gears of War cast, Dante, every space marine ever and half of the MOBA male champs are sexist.
Okay, looking back at it I guess you're right with the first point - most of the girls ARE drawn to look sexy, it's not really as equal as I had thought. But then, I don't think it's fine to vilify the team of Skullgirls for making the game they wanted to make and I was wrong in using the "butbutbut they're not ALL sexualized" argument in the same way that the "but the lead animator is a girl!" argument is flawed - I apologize for that.LilithSlave said:
So then I'll stop being dumb and move on to the overall point you're making instead:
yeah and most romance stories are written for women, are they not? certain things are considered "guy things" and others are considered "girl things" and never try to branch out. no this is not ideal and yes it is good when something has wide appeal but I don't see it as sexist, just people not wanting to take risks. There's also the fact that not everything is meant to have huge appeal, and maintaining the status quo isn't always a result of giving in to what the masses want - sometimes the creators genuinely want to make something like that, as is the case in Skullgirls.LilithSlave said:
It's hardly some crazy weirdo fetish, it's something most people who are attracted to women like! That's how things are. Of course it's not like if they dropped that and started focusing on girls' legs or something you'd be fine with it - you issue is with the amount of sexualization.LilithSlave said:
A big problem is that instead of criticizing the lack of character variety people just say "jiggle physics are bad, stop objectifying women" (okay 'objectifying' is another word I feel is misused in these discussions but I'll save that for later). It's much easier to find a symbol to rally against than it is to look at the big picture and decide what must be done to make things better.
I've always been of the opinion that the look of a character matters little to what the character actually does. A female character decked out in nothing but a few strategically placed silk-ribbons is alright with me, as long as it's still an independent, competent character. It's when female characters are whimpering princesses awaiting rescue who can't act outwards in any manner but admire their knight in shining armour that the sexism-siren goes off.
Of course, if said silk-ribbon lassie is being placed next to a male character completly decked out in heavy plate armour, it's getting weird, and I think that's also a bit sexist, but in a much less worse magnitude than the character behaviour example above. I suppose that usually happen because the makers don't want to frighten the usual demographic (teenage boys) with male erotica.
I think Jim Sterling made that point, as well. Skimpy, revealing outfits are fine, as long as the characters are still well-rounded and above all; it's evenly distributed. If chainmail-bikinis are established as viable battle-gear, it better be available for everyone.
Of course, if said silk-ribbon lassie is being placed next to a male character completly decked out in heavy plate armour, it's getting weird, and I think that's also a bit sexist, but in a much less worse magnitude than the character behaviour example above. I suppose that usually happen because the makers don't want to frighten the usual demographic (teenage boys) with male erotica.
I think Jim Sterling made that point, as well. Skimpy, revealing outfits are fine, as long as the characters are still well-rounded and above all; it's evenly distributed. If chainmail-bikinis are established as viable battle-gear, it better be available for everyone.
I personally would not have a problem with this if someone pointed out to me a single game that isnt crap that has a competent, appealing female protagonist with a realistically proportioned body. Because while there are plenty of unachievable male body types displayed, there are plenty of realistic ones too (at least in appearance).
Also, I promise you that any girl EVER with boobs that big that didn't pay for them is paying to get them removed. Because I know girls who started having back pains as a teenager from their chest. I understand that sex sells, but the issue is when 90% of women in games are fetishized and 9 of the remaining 10% are idiots.
And while I'm not sure Skullgirls is exactly sexist, it DEFINITELY objectifies women.
Also, I promise you that any girl EVER with boobs that big that didn't pay for them is paying to get them removed. Because I know girls who started having back pains as a teenager from their chest. I understand that sex sells, but the issue is when 90% of women in games are fetishized and 9 of the remaining 10% are idiots.
And while I'm not sure Skullgirls is exactly sexist, it DEFINITELY objectifies women.
...=x Honestly speaking, I think the 'sexiest' character is Parasoul, yes. However! I think she has the least panty shots of any character. Well, with the exception of Painwheel and Ms. Fortune I guess. (Since they don't have panties far as I can tell)busterbeam said:
While not 'panties', you do see Peacock's bloomers rather often. SO IT COUNTS.
Twilight is sexist. Anyone with a brain who has read the books can tell you that. And whats even worse is that a lot (but not all) of its sexism is actually against women.SpartanBlackman said: