That this whole "Feminist" frenzy, this whole trend of gaming journalists leaping on the kneejerk band wagon for publicity sake, has reach it's apex of idiocy.
So Mr.Schreier, of the fine rag that is Kotaku, comes out and decides that he's gonna complain about how the character in some game is scantily clad. Already, we're in "was this really worth a goddamn article?" territory. But then he goes further and says this:
For reference, this is the character he's talking about:
Now read what he says in there carefully, particularly around the middle there.
"Large breasts...are part of a lolicon fantasy"
Yeah. Outrageously large breasts are clearly what you think of when you think "lolicon" right?
Beyond the fact that he's quite clearly throwing out words that he has no goddang idea what mean, lets look a little bit further:
"Maybe she's a strong, mufti-faceted character with interesting thoughts and ambitions. None of that really matters because [of how she's presented]"
So what he's saying here is that a character cannot be both sexual and well rounded; that if a female character is attractive and dresses skimpy, that SHE AUTOMATICALLY DOES NOT MATTER. Don't we have these things called "Slut walks" that are all about how people should be free to dress however they want and not automatically be considered lesser for it? Isn't this much more chauvinist?
Lets keep reading, shall we?
Oh, in the part in parenthesis he talks about how, apparently, when women are portrayed in skin tight clothing, kicking ass and taking names, it's sexual objectification. But when men are shown in skin tight clothing, kicking ass and taking names, it's a power fantasy. I guess that explains why you never see women cosplaying as one of many scantily clad ass kickers from fantasy. OHWAIT! Here's 100+ images of exactly that!
http://wildammo.com/2012/05/28/comic-con-101-sexiest-female-cosplay/
Here's the thing, this is a double standard and not in the way you're probably thinking. It's a double standard in that it seemingly denies the ability for women to be attracted to fictional depictions of male and female characters. It's saying "Oh well, kitty pride's tight ass is just for guys to spank it over, but batman's rippling muscles, chiseled jaw and brooding attitude? Naw, thats just a male power fantasy. No women out there are into that! Women can't be sexual, they can only be objectified and have sex forced upon them!"
Male heroes are just as sexualized as their female counterparts. They might show less skin, but there's a reason they're all wearing skin tight clothing. And really, what the hell is wrong with the sexualization of characters anyways? Who gives a shit if characters are drawn to be attractive or arousing? Which brings us to the next point:
"This is just another example of an exclusionary chunk of gaming culture."
Yeah. So he appears to be saying that, by having this sexualized character, this game is somehow exclusionary to women. Because apparently in his world, if a girl picks up a game and starts playing as a sexualized female character she will immediately throw the controller across the room and cry in a corner because she is just so goddamn offended that anyone would have the gall to acknowledge that women have boobs. It's like that time I played god of war and noticed that he was wearing a very short skirt and no shirt. I had to scrub myself for days because I felt just so excluded from the whole gaming industry.
Oh wait. No I didn't.
In fact, my girlfriend just finished playing Odin Sphere, another game by the same company. And look at this character that was in it.
But how can this be? Surely she should be excluded from this part of gaming culture by virtue of the fact that that lady isn't wearing pants! Why isn't she outraged by the fact that a fucking CARTOON is drawn in a sexualized manner. Oh, I know, it's because she's not a goddamn idiot. She's a sensible human being who doesn't feel like cleavage is an affront to her gender.
And here's the final thing. The final unspoken kernel of idiocy that underlies this entire goddamn tower of self-righteous indignation. You know that whole argument that bad female characters are detrimental to society? That kids playing mario is teaching them that women are helpless and need to be rescued? Or that your female sidekick helping you out is just teaching them that women are here to do your bidding?
Yeah, thats the exact same argument as "Violence in videogames are to blame for violence in real life." So congrats, if you think that animated tits jiggling around is actually affecting society, rather then reflecting it, then you might as well believe that Doom programs children to murder and that we're just sheep who will do and believe whatever mr.tv tells us to.
So I'm just gonna post this
It's something that a woman replied to the original post by Mr.footinmouth.
And now I'm going to go back to bed. And you can wake me up when this whole stupid mess has blown over and games journalism actually means something again.
So Mr.Schreier, of the fine rag that is Kotaku, comes out and decides that he's gonna complain about how the character in some game is scantily clad. Already, we're in "was this really worth a goddamn article?" territory. But then he goes further and says this:
For reference, this is the character he's talking about:
Now read what he says in there carefully, particularly around the middle there.
"Large breasts...are part of a lolicon fantasy"
Yeah. Outrageously large breasts are clearly what you think of when you think "lolicon" right?
Beyond the fact that he's quite clearly throwing out words that he has no goddang idea what mean, lets look a little bit further:
"Maybe she's a strong, mufti-faceted character with interesting thoughts and ambitions. None of that really matters because [of how she's presented]"
So what he's saying here is that a character cannot be both sexual and well rounded; that if a female character is attractive and dresses skimpy, that SHE AUTOMATICALLY DOES NOT MATTER. Don't we have these things called "Slut walks" that are all about how people should be free to dress however they want and not automatically be considered lesser for it? Isn't this much more chauvinist?
Lets keep reading, shall we?
Oh, in the part in parenthesis he talks about how, apparently, when women are portrayed in skin tight clothing, kicking ass and taking names, it's sexual objectification. But when men are shown in skin tight clothing, kicking ass and taking names, it's a power fantasy. I guess that explains why you never see women cosplaying as one of many scantily clad ass kickers from fantasy. OHWAIT! Here's 100+ images of exactly that!
http://wildammo.com/2012/05/28/comic-con-101-sexiest-female-cosplay/
Here's the thing, this is a double standard and not in the way you're probably thinking. It's a double standard in that it seemingly denies the ability for women to be attracted to fictional depictions of male and female characters. It's saying "Oh well, kitty pride's tight ass is just for guys to spank it over, but batman's rippling muscles, chiseled jaw and brooding attitude? Naw, thats just a male power fantasy. No women out there are into that! Women can't be sexual, they can only be objectified and have sex forced upon them!"
Male heroes are just as sexualized as their female counterparts. They might show less skin, but there's a reason they're all wearing skin tight clothing. And really, what the hell is wrong with the sexualization of characters anyways? Who gives a shit if characters are drawn to be attractive or arousing? Which brings us to the next point:
"This is just another example of an exclusionary chunk of gaming culture."
Yeah. So he appears to be saying that, by having this sexualized character, this game is somehow exclusionary to women. Because apparently in his world, if a girl picks up a game and starts playing as a sexualized female character she will immediately throw the controller across the room and cry in a corner because she is just so goddamn offended that anyone would have the gall to acknowledge that women have boobs. It's like that time I played god of war and noticed that he was wearing a very short skirt and no shirt. I had to scrub myself for days because I felt just so excluded from the whole gaming industry.
Oh wait. No I didn't.
In fact, my girlfriend just finished playing Odin Sphere, another game by the same company. And look at this character that was in it.
But how can this be? Surely she should be excluded from this part of gaming culture by virtue of the fact that that lady isn't wearing pants! Why isn't she outraged by the fact that a fucking CARTOON is drawn in a sexualized manner. Oh, I know, it's because she's not a goddamn idiot. She's a sensible human being who doesn't feel like cleavage is an affront to her gender.
And here's the final thing. The final unspoken kernel of idiocy that underlies this entire goddamn tower of self-righteous indignation. You know that whole argument that bad female characters are detrimental to society? That kids playing mario is teaching them that women are helpless and need to be rescued? Or that your female sidekick helping you out is just teaching them that women are here to do your bidding?
Yeah, thats the exact same argument as "Violence in videogames are to blame for violence in real life." So congrats, if you think that animated tits jiggling around is actually affecting society, rather then reflecting it, then you might as well believe that Doom programs children to murder and that we're just sheep who will do and believe whatever mr.tv tells us to.
So I'm just gonna post this
It's something that a woman replied to the original post by Mr.footinmouth.
And now I'm going to go back to bed. And you can wake me up when this whole stupid mess has blown over and games journalism actually means something again.
