This is where it all comes down to perspective. A lot of men (inb4 reverse sexism; I'm a man) become unconsciously defensive when they hear the word "sexism" - they feel that the word is targeted against men as a gender. In reality, sexism refers more to a system of inequality perpetuated by institutions and social mores -
Hearing this argument always makes me cringe. Sexism is simply a form of discrimination if it targets the gender of an individual or group of people. The odd thing is when the definition needs to be altered to suits the need of a particular individual. The definition is clearly put in black and white in law and no amount of social science can change this. So no, sexism isn't about institutions or social mores and can be equally applicable to men and women alike.
I realise you didn't say women cannot be sexist to men but that's the next logical step using your definition and that, my friend, is horribly wrong, and sexist.
Some instances of sexism are major (unequal pay for equal work),
Equal pay for equal work sounds fair. However, this statement is often times linked to the mythological wage gap. Sadly you are implying just that by stating this is combination with your mention of sexism.
while some are minor (women fighting in armored bikinis) but no less insidious.
The insidiousness of the portrait of women in video games is no more faulty than that of men. I would counter your women fighting in armoured bikinis with men fighting half naked and looking more like body builders then men with true strength. Making a difference in this matter is sexist by itself and guilty of the assumption that women cannot make up their own minds about how they want to look and act.
This is exactly the kind of mindset that I do not want to be reminded of when playing my favourite game. If these 'moral lessons' are indeed present in the game then I'm very upset about it.
I also like how people are crying about the "social justice agenda". Im replaying BG2 as part of my full playthrough and seriously some of the stuff Ive seen in SoA.
Many of these guys are nearly 15 years late on the whining. Well, they would be if it was a legitimate complaint and not just a smokescreen for their pathetic insecurity and paranoia.
As an example do these people not remember Mazzy? The same Mazzy who goes on a "social justice" rant at Yoshimo for calling her cute and being unconciously demeaning toward her because of her height.
If Beamdog had written Mazzy itd be proof of the creeping SJW agenda. As its in the original that they supposedly "love" they quietly ignore it.
Making a difference in this matter is sexist by itself and guilty of the assumption that women cannot make up their own minds about how they want to look and act.
This is where it all comes down to perspective. A lot of men (inb4 reverse sexism; I'm a man) become unconsciously defensive when they hear the word "sexism" - they feel that the word is targeted against men as a gender. In reality, sexism refers more to a system of inequality perpetuated by institutions and social mores -
Hearing this argument always makes me cringe. Sexism is simply a form of discrimination if it targets the gender of an individual or group of people. The odd thing is when the definition needs to be altered to suits the need of a particular individual. The definition is clearly put in black and white in law and no amount of social science can change this. So no, sexism isn't about institutions or social mores and can be equally applicable to men and women alike.
I realise you didn't say women cannot be sexist to men but that's the next logical step using your definition and that, my friend, is horribly wrong, and sexist.
Some instances of sexism are major (unequal pay for equal work),
Equal pay for equal work sounds fair. However, this statement is often times linked to the mythological wage gap. Sadly you are implying just that by stating this is combination with your mention of sexism.
while some are minor (women fighting in armored bikinis) but no less insidious.
The insidiousness of the portrait of women in video games is no more faulty than that of men. I would counter your women fighting in armoured bikinis with men fighting half naked and looking more like body builders then men with true strength. Making a difference in this matter is sexist by itself and guilty of the assumption that women cannot make up their own minds about how they want to look and act.
This is exactly the kind of mindset that I do not want to be reminded of when playing my favourite game. If these 'moral lessons' are indeed present in the game then I'm very upset about it.
Edited for typo's.
Yes, men in video games are often depicted as bodybuilder types - but they are depicted as such more to signal prowess and mastery than to be mere sex objects as female characters often are.
As for your "mythological" wage gap, women are frequently discriminated against in terms of DOE salaries: there have been multiple studies wherein employers were sent identical resumes for male and female applicants only to significantly favor the male applicants both in terms of hiring and pay. The same problem occurs when applicant "John Smith" is changed to applicant "Jamal Smith" for that matter.
Finally, sexism: for the purpose of this thread, I'm referring to sexism against women as pervasive in culture. If you want to draw false equivalencies or pretend that it doesn't exist, you're welcome to do so; but I've spent years knee-deep in studying post-structural feminism and - whether you agree with me or not - I'm probably not going to have my mind changed by some MRA in a video game forum. Let's save ourselves both some time.
Yes, men in video games are often depicted as bodybuilder types - but they are depicted as such more to signal prowess and mastery than to be mere sex objects as female characters often are.
I strongly disagree, regardless of the underlying intent (be it fighting prowess or sexual prowess), the harm done to men is just as great. It is unreasonnable and sexist to propose men are less affected by manifestations of society's expectation toward them. I do not look anything like a bodybuilder. I now know that it doesn't matter in the slightest, but I'm 27. When I was 14 I sure as hell wasn't able to shield me as such.
Be it for man or woman, sexism is sexism, any attempt to say otherwise is also sexism.
If Conan is ok then sexy Safana (the one portrayed in BG1) is too. So, either they both are wrong or either they both are ok. That would be true equality to me. As a personal preference, I'd much rather have both Conan-like and sexy Safana-like characters included in works of fiction than none at all.
Edit: spelling...
If men and women were equally hurt by sexism, there would not be a disparity of privilege in society re: gender. Women are more frequently subject to sexism than are men.
Let's take your example, Conan the Barbarian - his physical appearance is directly tied to his skill and mastery as a character. His muscles are on display with an intent to signify his ability and strength, not to titillate female viewers.
By contrast, let's look at pre-2013 Lara Croft. How, exactly, do her giant breasts and impossibly skinny waist help her in combat? Those features were included for the gratification of male players, just like the panty shots in Soul Calibur (a game I love!) or the everythings in Dead or Alive. Although I would agree that men and women are often both depicted in terms of physical ideals, the intent behind those depictions (and the effect thereof) is what matters.
@Purudaya It is indeed a pity we will never see eye to eye on this matter, but calling me a men's rights activist is a little silly. I do not know anything about you nor do you know me or my motivations. I don't strive for any rights of men nor am I inclined to do any of the sort for whatever reason.
As for the discrepancy in salaries, I'd like to make the argument that it doesn't make any logical sense for an employer to prefer men over women if you are in fact paying women less. If I ran a business and I could get away with that, I wouldn't hire any men for purposes of pure profit. Nevertheless, I don't think I'm aware of said studies so if you could point me to them I'd gladly take a look.
@joluv I beg your pardon for missing a step in the logic there. I assumed that the insidiousness of the minor sexism against women related to the way they are depicted in certain high fantasy settings (i.e. the chainmail bikini) was that it affects the mental image that women and girls have of themselves and somehow degrades their self esteem.
With some reflection, I have got to say I was too hasty and assumed too much. Perhaps the problem with it is merely related to Purudaya's double standard for the depiction of women and men in the aforementioned fantasy settings.
As for the discrepancy in salaries, I'd like to make the argument that it doesn't make any logical sense for an employer to prefer men over women if you are in fact paying women less. If I ran a business and I could get away with that, I wouldn't hire any men for purposes of pure profit. Nevertheless, I don't think I'm aware of said studies so if you could point me to them I'd gladly take a look.
It certainly is illogical, but there's a lot of illogical prejudice in the world. It's easily verifiable that women's average wages are less than men's (18% less for full-time workers in the U.S.: http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/women-in-the-labor-force-a-databook-2014.pdf). So there's clearly not "equal pay," but there's also not exactly "equal work," which is where the question gets harder to address. There's a ton of research on this, but it's about the extent and causes of the wage gap. No serious researcher is questioning whether it exists. If you want to read about it, the "Gender pay gap" Wikipedia page is probably a reasonable place to start.
@joluv I beg your pardon for missing a step in the logic there. I assumed that the insidiousness of the minor sexism against women related to the way they are depicted in certain high fantasy settings (i.e. the chainmail bikini) was that it affects the mental image that women and girls have of themselves and somehow degrades their self esteem.
I think those images can reinforce (for men and women) the idea that a woman's value is equal to her sex appeal. That's a pretty deep-rooted idea in our culture, and the male equivalent is much less so.
@Purudaya It is indeed a pity we will never see eye to eye on this matter, but calling me a men's rights activist is a little silly. I do not know anything about you nor do you know me or my motivations. I don't strive for any rights of men nor am I inclined to do any of the sort for whatever reason.
As for the discrepancy in salaries, I'd like to make the argument that it doesn't make any logical sense for an employer to prefer men over women if you are in fact paying women less. If I ran a business and I could get away with that, I wouldn't hire any men for purposes of pure profit. Nevertheless, I don't think I'm aware of said studies so if you could point me to them I'd gladly take a look.
@joluv I beg your pardon for missing a step in the logic there. I assumed that the insidiousness of the minor sexism against women related to the way they are depicted in certain high fantasy settings (i.e. the chainmail bikini) was that it affects the mental image that women and girls have of themselves and somehow degrades their self esteem.
With some reflection, I have got to say I was too hasty and assumed too much. Perhaps the problem with it is merely related to Purudaya's double standard for the depiction of women and men in the aforementioned fantasy settings.
MRA: If it walks like a duck and it talks like a duck...but whatever. I take your point.
Double Standards: If you're not going to address my actual point re: the intent behind depictions of men and women, then we are going to continue arguing about different things. Men and women are depicted differently in terms of capability, agency, and objectification. For every prince in distress you can name, I can name ten damsels.
But again, if you are unwilling to accept that depictions of men are typically more empowering than depictions of women or that women are more frequently *reduced* to sex objects than men are, we're not going to get anywhere. And that's ok.
I am so sick and tired of men trying to say that they get equal treatment, that video-games are just as sexist and harmful in their portrayals of men, that the issue is perfectly equal.
It's not.
Throughout human history, women have been beaten, raped, subjugated, and killed by men who didn't like the way they walked, didn't like the way they talked, didn't like the way they dressed, and so on. The perception of women as sexual objects made and used to satisfy men reinforces this violence done to us--that we're not really people worthy of respect, we're just pieces of meat meant to titilize one moment and beat within an inch of death the next.
When a man looks at a picture of a woman in bikini-mail armor, he thinks "Well, that's kinda impractical, but it's just fantasy art. It's not hurting anyone."
When I look at at a picture of a woman in bikini-mail armor, I think "This is all society thinks of me. This is all I'm good for. I'm not a person. I'm a piece of meat to exploit."
And somewhere else, a woman is being raped because some monster of a boyfriend or husband or stranger thinks this is all she's good for. She's not a person. She's a piece of meat to exploit.
You might say I'm being over-dramatic. That I'm blowing the issues way out of proportion. That that one piece of artwork has nothing to do with the crimes against women carried out all across the globe every single day.
If there was only one picture floating around like that, you might be right. But there isn't. There's hundreds, thousands of artwork like this, and more than that. You have entire female characters in Soulcalibur hacking away at each other and tearing off each other's clothes in the process. You have body pillows in anime shops depicting a teenaged girl with her skirt pulled up, looking vulnerable. You have the cover of swimsuit magazines and Victoria Secret commercials and god knows what else telling women, every f*cking day, "This is all you're good for. You're not a person. You're a piece of meat to exploit."
A way of thinking that has driven the violence and killing of women since forever.
***
You can go ahead and point out the sexism in male idealized characters like Conan, and I will agree, they are extremely toxic for boys and men. Not everyone looks like a body-builder, and many people never will. It's just as harmful as when teenage girls open up a magazine and read all these articles about how to get a boy's attention, how to get that bikini-body, how to get that gorgeous tan, and so on.
Nor am I saying that men don't have problems too; of course they do. We're all human. We all have problems.
I'm just saying that sexism of this scale, that has infected entire cultures all around the world, with hundreds of years of violence and exploitation to back it up, is not one of them.
Yes, men in video games are often depicted as bodybuilder types - but they are depicted as such more to signal prowess and mastery than to be mere sex objects as female characters often are.
I strongly disagree, regardless of the underlying intent (be it fighting prowess or sexual prowess), the harm done to men is just as great. It is unreasonnable and sexist to propose men are less affected by manifestations of society's expectation toward them. I do not look anything like a bodybuilder. I now know that it doesn't matter in the slightest, but I'm 27. When I was 14 I sure as hell wasn't able to shield me as such.
Be it for man or woman, sexism is sexism, any attempt to say otherwise is also sexism.
If Conan is ok then sexy Safana (the one portrayed in BG1) is too. So, either they both are wrong or either they both are ok. That would be true equality to me. As a personal preference, I'd much rather have both Conan-like and sexy Safana-like characters included in works of fiction than none at all.
Edit: spelling...
Well my problem with Conan being almost always depicted in a loin-cloth and nothing else (apart from boots I guess) is that he is almost never depicted like that in Howard's original stories (nor is Kull for that matter) and regularly wears armour such as chain mail shirts because of their protective qualities (and which save his life a few times). It's just seems to be the idea that has this is what fantasy barbarians should look like.
As for the rest, these discussions are like walking on egg-shells, most people tend to have their minds made up and are convinced of their position, so I won't really add anything to that.
@Nonnahswriter I don't think violence done to women a thousand years ago is relevant in any way to the issue we're currently tackling. Certain tropes have been used in the source material. Certain individuals, writers amonst them, feel their use added to the overall sexism of the game. I don't think it did and also explained why I thought the sentiment was poorly worded and ill-considered in *that* interview over the course of my previous posts.
After that the discussion jumped off to how sexism affects men and women across all kind of media and kind of derailed a little bit. That being said, I really don't get the bikini chainmail equals rape comment and don't feel like replying to that. True, in general women are more subject to sexism, but that's certainly not the case in BG1.
Ah, now we suddenly have to stay on topic? I'm sorry, but violence against women is ABSOLUTELY linked to how they are depicted in culture. I spent three years as a rape crisis responder and can tell you that everything @Nonnahswriter observed is spot on - our culture has ingrained the idea that women are objects for sexual gratification so deeply that it has engendered a sense of sexual entitlement among more men than most people are comfortable admitting. Viewing women as "pieces of meat" first and "people" second is exactly what this comes down to, and media absolutely reinforces that.
This is why sexist depictions of women are so much more harmful than "sexist" depictions of men. It's not even close to the same thing.
Violence towards women is off the scale elsewhere compared to western cultures, within cultures where women have no images in culture at all.
Sigh. Women are objectified in virtually every culture. It doesn't always take the same form, but it is one of the most prevalent themes running throughout human history. And yes, whether it's in the form of depictions in media or through Sharia law, it does have a socializing effect - people internalize what their society teaches them about women.
@joluv "Throughout human history" reaches back many many thousands of years, depending on what you consider human or primate.
@Purudaya I apologize if me considering we were slowly getting off-topic hurted your feelings in any way. I was only trying to summarize a thread that spans quite a few posts now and felt it best described the situation. About that though, I am starting to question what you mean by piece of meat. I do not personnaly know anyone who has ever expressed such feelings. That sentiment is entirely alien to me. With all due respect, working as a rape crisis responder might have biased your judgment as to the prevalence of rape in today's society. I think anyone would be very hard pressed to establish a causal link between BG1's Safana and the prevalence of sexual assaults in modern times. This sounds a bit too alarmist to my liking.
Edit: spelling...
1 in 5 women are victims of sexual assault. My work hasn't biased me toward over-perceiving rape as a problem.
I agree that the thread has gone off topic, I was just questioning the sudden call to bring it back by someone who helped move the conversation to where it is. My feelings weren't hurt, but I'm passionate about the issue and have a hard time - after what I've seen and experienced - seeing objectification handwaved or false equivalences drawn.
But, to be honest, the argument is wearing me out. If you want to see actual scholarly research on the issue, I'll leave a link. Have a good one.
"Throughout human history" reaches back many many thousands of years, depending on what you consider human or primate.
Oh, OK. So like I initially thought, @Nonnahswriter described a current problem that has also existed forever, and your response was to dismiss it by saying that stuff from 1000 years ago is irrelevant. I thought that surely I was missing something, but no.
@PurudayaI thank you for taking the time it look that up for me, it's certainly is interesting. Just a shame I cannot seem to get my hands on the actual research material, especially because there are studies that seem to find the polar opposite: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract.
I didn't address your point on the intent behind the depiction of the sexes as @JonSnowIsAlive beat me to it, so I left it out. I agree with his points but I can reiterate if requested.
@joluv I have taken a look at the wage gap wiki but it seems to me that citing 18% less wages while not taking into account the 5 hours a week men work more and the fact that overtime is paid to a higher extend means it's clearly not equal work either. As oppose to not exactly. That still leaves a certain percentage unaccounted for but to assume this is primarily due to sexism seems like a stretch. Especially as it's illegal in most western countries to pay anyone less based on their gender and I'm unaware of any cases that made it to court over it.
It does stand to reason that a practice that goes against good business sense wouldn't take place and certainly isn't some nefarious plot orchestrated by one of the genders over the other. As for it being a subconscious bias we may all share due to our culture: now that's a question more akin to philosophy than anything else. I'm afraid I don't have anything to go on regarding that, so I'll assume it's a possibility and I'll keep it in mind. Thank you for the pointers regardless, most enlightening.
Speaking of nefarious plots and to get it back on topic at least a little; I was hoping for more evil dialogue choices. It's nice to be the hero but it seems lot harder plot wise to write in an evil dialogue choice without shutting down the story completely. Insulting someone in the game is bound to stifle any further exchange or the presentation of other quests. Which seems a pity as I do like to have an evil play through.
I have taken a look at the wage gap wiki but it seems to me that citing 18% less wages while not taking into account the 5 hours a week men work more and the fact that overtime is paid to a higher extend means it's clearly not equal work either. As oppose to not exactly. That still leaves a certain percentage unaccounted for but to assume this is primarily due to sexism seems like a stretch. Especially as it's illegal in most western countries to pay anyone less based on their gender and I'm unaware of any cases that made it to court over it.
Yes, there are major differences. But it's fair to ask, to take your example, why women work fewer hours. Is it that employers are less willing to give them overtime? Is it that they are opting to work fewer hours because they spend more time on childcare, etc.? If so, is that something that they have a real choice about or a responsibility that's being unevenly pushed on them? When something is so blatantly unequal, I think the suspicion that something fundamentally unfair is happening is only natural. There's a lot of nuance hiding behind that figure, but waving away something on this scale with, "Well, there are probably valid reasons" seems misguided.
It does stand to reason that a practice that goes against good business sense wouldn't take place and certainly isn't some nefarious plot orchestrated by one of the genders over the other. As for it being a subconscious bias we may all share due to our culture: now that's a question more akin to philosophy than anything else. I'm afraid I don't have anything to go on regarding that, so I'll assume it's a possibility and I'll keep it in mind.
I disagree that good business sense consistently trumps prejudice, and you don't have to look very hard to find examples of discriminatory hiring practices standing in the way of finding the best people for the job. It's not from the corporate world, but this comes to mind: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/08/opinion/08benjamin.html I also disagree about the existence of subconscious bias being a philosophical question. It's something that can be measured and investigated, and then hopefully lessened.
Portrayal of men in media (television especially) as ultra muscular individuals somehow obligated to lift their shirt and show their 6 packs is of course an attempt at titillating woman. It sure doesn't titillate me.
If male characters were designed for the appreciative gaze of the majority of women, they would not look like Conan.
And if female characters were designed to look strong and capable, they would not look like... the vast majority of female characters.
Also, Conan displaying his enormous muscles rather indicates to me that he's too dumb to wear armor and understand its protective value. He wouldn't last 5 minutes in a real war.
Lots of people in real life fought in wars without armour. Most (possibly all) of the Gauls under Brennus were unarmoured and that didn't stop them from defeating the Romans and sacking Rome.
If male characters were designed for the appreciative gaze of the majority of women, they would not look like Conan.
That might just be your perspective. I don't generally hear women complain about muscles. Also, remember some of them (I don't want to generalize to all characters) are designed to be as titillating as can be under a set of very restrictive constraints such as but not limited to: respecting the plot, looking intimidating, looking *cool*, being adapted to its environnment, etc.
Just take a look at Jason Momoa's portrayal of Conan in 2011 (yes, I am aware this movie is no masterpiece). Do not tell me they choose to hire him with no considerations in mind whatsoever for his, let's say, charms.
Lots of people in real life fought in wars without armour. Most (possibly all) of the Gauls under Brennus were unarmoured and that didn't stop them from defeating the Romans and sacking Rome.
They didn't choose not to wear armor, they simply did not possess the ressources and the technology to produce them efficiently and en masse. Any soldier in his right state of mind would wear armor given the choice. There's a reason Julius Caesar describes the Gauls as primitive barbarians and their military organisation (that includes armor) likely factored into that. Its been years since I read Commentarii de Bello Gallico, but I think this is a no brainer.
Conan on the other hand, and this has already been pointed out by other posters, could and has been described in the books as wearing armor. The choice to strip him naked must have at least partially been made with the ladies in mind. Now wether that was effective of not is an entirely different matter.
Edit: spelling...
This is true, the Gaullic warriors who fought without armour only did so because it was beyond their reach, and the Gauls did not have workshops and essentially the manufacturing base the urban Roman Republic had to both import and process ore and produce armour in large quantities. For even the urbanized Cekts the metal worker was still a special artisan and craftman, patronized by nobles for his special (almost mystic knowledge, a theme that crops up, as it does in Germanic/Scandinavian myths, regularly as figures of magic powers and knowledge).
In fact the Celts invented chain mail and a number of other armour inovations (such a helmet design) which cunning Romans were quick to copy abd mass produce for their soldiers.
The only Celts I know of choose to fight in a manner sumilar to the (incorrect I repeat) depictions of Conan are Briton warriors both during Julius's expedition and then the invasion launched by Cladius (largely under Vespasian, the true sucessor to the Julio-Cludian line after their end with Nero, after a few very short abortive attempts by four others to claim be Emperor, 69 was a bloody year, most of all for Judaea and Jerulsalem). Some of their earriirs, particularly those riding war chariots (a antiquated method of warfare by that stagw, with Gauls long since chamged to using cavalry) with the warriors naked, limed hair white and spiked with blue woad cerimonial markings? It would seem to be a cerimonial aspect to warfare, but not on it's own to practical or successful. When other approaches and tactics (such as guerilla tactics) were used they had more temporary success, definitely during Ceasar's expedition at least.
I really wish we could close every thread that devolves into this meaningless discussion. Nobody has anything interesting to say on the subject, and it has 0 relevance to Siege of Dragonspear. I'm particularly tired of certain posters such as Purudaya soapboxing for literally hundreds of posts. Stop it. It's extremely trite and played out.
Comments
I realise you didn't say women cannot be sexist to men but that's the next logical step using your definition and that, my friend, is horribly wrong, and sexist. Equal pay for equal work sounds fair. However, this statement is often times linked to the mythological wage gap. Sadly you are implying just that by stating this is combination with your mention of sexism. The insidiousness of the portrait of women in video games is no more faulty than that of men. I would counter your women fighting in armoured bikinis with men fighting half naked and looking more like body builders then men with true strength. Making a difference in this matter is sexist by itself and guilty of the assumption that women cannot make up their own minds about how they want to look and act.
This is exactly the kind of mindset that I do not want to be reminded of when playing my favourite game. If these 'moral lessons' are indeed present in the game then I'm very upset about it.
Edited for typo's.
Many of these guys are nearly 15 years late on the whining. Well, they would be if it was a legitimate complaint and not just a smokescreen for their pathetic insecurity and paranoia.
As an example do these people not remember Mazzy? The same Mazzy who goes on a "social justice" rant at Yoshimo for calling her cute and being unconciously demeaning toward her because of her height.
If Beamdog had written Mazzy itd be proof of the creeping SJW agenda. As its in the original that they supposedly "love" they quietly ignore it.
As for your "mythological" wage gap, women are frequently discriminated against in terms of DOE salaries: there have been multiple studies wherein employers were sent identical resumes for male and female applicants only to significantly favor the male applicants both in terms of hiring and pay. The same problem occurs when applicant "John Smith" is changed to applicant "Jamal Smith" for that matter.
Finally, sexism: for the purpose of this thread, I'm referring to sexism against women as pervasive in culture. If you want to draw false equivalencies or pretend that it doesn't exist, you're welcome to do so; but I've spent years knee-deep in studying post-structural feminism and - whether you agree with me or not - I'm probably not going to have my mind changed by some MRA in a video game forum. Let's save ourselves both some time.
Let's take your example, Conan the Barbarian - his physical appearance is directly tied to his skill and mastery as a character. His muscles are on display with an intent to signify his ability and strength, not to titillate female viewers.
By contrast, let's look at pre-2013 Lara Croft. How, exactly, do her giant breasts and impossibly skinny waist help her in combat? Those features were included for the gratification of male players, just like the panty shots in Soul Calibur (a game I love!) or the everythings in Dead or Alive. Although I would agree that men and women are often both depicted in terms of physical ideals, the intent behind those depictions (and the effect thereof) is what matters.
As for the discrepancy in salaries, I'd like to make the argument that it doesn't make any logical sense for an employer to prefer men over women if you are in fact paying women less. If I ran a business and I could get away with that, I wouldn't hire any men for purposes of pure profit. Nevertheless, I don't think I'm aware of said studies so if you could point me to them I'd gladly take a look.
@joluv I beg your pardon for missing a step in the logic there. I assumed that the insidiousness of the minor sexism against women related to the way they are depicted in certain high fantasy settings (i.e. the chainmail bikini) was that it affects the mental image that women and girls have of themselves and somehow degrades their self esteem.
With some reflection, I have got to say I was too hasty and assumed too much. Perhaps the problem with it is merely related to Purudaya's double standard for the depiction of women and men in the aforementioned fantasy settings.
Discrepancy in salaries: Here's one -
http://www.yalescientific.org/2013/02/john-vs-jennifer-a-battle-of-the-sexes/
Double Standards: If you're not going to address my actual point re: the intent behind depictions of men and women, then we are going to continue arguing about different things. Men and women are depicted differently in terms of capability, agency, and objectification. For every prince in distress you can name, I can name ten damsels.
But again, if you are unwilling to accept that depictions of men are typically more empowering than depictions of women or that women are more frequently *reduced* to sex objects than men are, we're not going to get anywhere. And that's ok.
It's not.
Throughout human history, women have been beaten, raped, subjugated, and killed by men who didn't like the way they walked, didn't like the way they talked, didn't like the way they dressed, and so on. The perception of women as sexual objects made and used to satisfy men reinforces this violence done to us--that we're not really people worthy of respect, we're just pieces of meat meant to titilize one moment and beat within an inch of death the next.
When a man looks at a picture of a woman in bikini-mail armor, he thinks "Well, that's kinda impractical, but it's just fantasy art. It's not hurting anyone."
When I look at at a picture of a woman in bikini-mail armor, I think "This is all society thinks of me. This is all I'm good for. I'm not a person. I'm a piece of meat to exploit."
And somewhere else, a woman is being raped because some monster of a boyfriend or husband or stranger thinks this is all she's good for. She's not a person. She's a piece of meat to exploit.
You might say I'm being over-dramatic. That I'm blowing the issues way out of proportion. That that one piece of artwork has nothing to do with the crimes against women carried out all across the globe every single day.
If there was only one picture floating around like that, you might be right. But there isn't. There's hundreds, thousands of artwork like this, and more than that. You have entire female characters in Soulcalibur hacking away at each other and tearing off each other's clothes in the process. You have body pillows in anime shops depicting a teenaged girl with her skirt pulled up, looking vulnerable. You have the cover of swimsuit magazines and Victoria Secret commercials and god knows what else telling women, every f*cking day, "This is all you're good for. You're not a person. You're a piece of meat to exploit."
A way of thinking that has driven the violence and killing of women since forever.
***
You can go ahead and point out the sexism in male idealized characters like Conan, and I will agree, they are extremely toxic for boys and men. Not everyone looks like a body-builder, and many people never will. It's just as harmful as when teenage girls open up a magazine and read all these articles about how to get a boy's attention, how to get that bikini-body, how to get that gorgeous tan, and so on.
Nor am I saying that men don't have problems too; of course they do. We're all human. We all have problems.
I'm just saying that sexism of this scale, that has infected entire cultures all around the world, with hundreds of years of violence and exploitation to back it up, is not one of them.
As for the rest, these discussions are like walking on egg-shells, most people tend to have their minds made up and are convinced of their position, so I won't really add anything to that.
This is why sexist depictions of women are so much more harmful than "sexist" depictions of men. It's not even close to the same thing.
Violence towards women is off the scale elsewhere compared to western cultures, within cultures where women have no images in culture at all.
I agree that the thread has gone off topic, I was just questioning the sudden call to bring it back by someone who helped move the conversation to where it is. My feelings weren't hurt, but I'm passionate about the issue and have a hard time - after what I've seen and experienced - seeing objectification handwaved or false equivalences drawn.
But, to be honest, the argument is wearing me out. If you want to see actual scholarly research on the issue, I'll leave a link. Have a good one.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26585169
I didn't address your point on the intent behind the depiction of the sexes as @JonSnowIsAlive beat me to it, so I left it out. I agree with his points but I can reiterate if requested.
@joluv I have taken a look at the wage gap wiki but it seems to me that citing 18% less wages while not taking into account the 5 hours a week men work more and the fact that overtime is paid to a higher extend means it's clearly not equal work either. As oppose to not exactly. That still leaves a certain percentage unaccounted for but to assume this is primarily due to sexism seems like a stretch. Especially as it's illegal in most western countries to pay anyone less based on their gender and I'm unaware of any cases that made it to court over it.
It does stand to reason that a practice that goes against good business sense wouldn't take place and certainly isn't some nefarious plot orchestrated by one of the genders over the other. As for it being a subconscious bias we may all share due to our culture: now that's a question more akin to philosophy than anything else. I'm afraid I don't have anything to go on regarding that, so I'll assume it's a possibility and I'll keep it in mind. Thank you for the pointers regardless, most enlightening.
Speaking of nefarious plots and to get it back on topic at least a little; I was hoping for more evil dialogue choices. It's nice to be the hero but it seems lot harder plot wise to write in an evil dialogue choice without shutting down the story completely. Insulting someone in the game is bound to stifle any further exchange or the presentation of other quests. Which seems a pity as I do like to have an evil play through.
And if female characters were designed to look strong and capable, they would not look like... the vast majority of female characters. Lots of people in real life fought in wars without armour. Most (possibly all) of the Gauls under Brennus were unarmoured and that didn't stop them from defeating the Romans and sacking Rome.
In fact the Celts invented chain mail and a number of other armour inovations (such a helmet design) which cunning Romans were quick to copy abd mass produce for their soldiers.
The only Celts I know of choose to fight in a manner sumilar to the (incorrect I repeat) depictions of Conan are Briton warriors both during Julius's expedition and then the invasion launched by Cladius (largely under Vespasian, the true sucessor to the Julio-Cludian line after their end with Nero, after a few very short abortive attempts by four others to claim be Emperor, 69 was a bloody year, most of all for Judaea and Jerulsalem). Some of their earriirs, particularly those riding war chariots (a antiquated method of warfare by that stagw, with Gauls long since chamged to using cavalry) with the warriors naked, limed hair white and spiked with blue woad cerimonial markings? It would seem to be a cerimonial aspect to warfare, but not on it's own to practical or successful. When other approaches and tactics (such as guerilla tactics) were used they had more temporary success, definitely during Ceasar's expedition at least.