Skip to content

Stupid Female Fighter-Class Portraits

12467

Comments

  • LadyRhianLadyRhian Member Posts: 14,694
    @Nancybuttpeach And yet, there have been women warriors in other cultures. The "Amazons" for one (not the greek legend, but the horse-riding warrior women they were based on in what is modern-day Russia and Ancient Sarmatia) Not every culture saw things as exclusively male- Warriors, Women- mothers. 20% of Scythian-Sarmatian graves contain women with typically "male" artifacts such as arrowheads, Swords and knives, as well as saddles, and the females are dressed in the same warrior garb as the males. In Tabriz in 2004, they discovered the grave of a warrior woman of ancient Iran.

    Here's a link to Wikipedia, and on the side, there is a link to women warriors in different periods of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_warrior
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    As has been pointed out numerous times in this and other threads (thanks @LadyRhian for that last reference), the cultural stigma that women are weak and men are strong is a cultural one, not a natural one. In other words, it's a choice that society makes, and by extension a choice that every author makes when he or she crafts a world with that same stigma. It's the default choice, because it's the choice that most of Western civilization has made, but it's not the only choice, not nearly the only believable choice, and (by today's more "progressive", pro-feminist standards) not the most desirable choice.

    It comes down to your personal beliefs, ultimately. But you can tell, from games that are being released now versus twenty years ago, that the perspective is shifting--not only on a gender scale, but on a racial one and a moral and ethical one as well. And that's a good thing.
    MoiraDragonspearJalilySanctifer
  • NazgulUFNazgulUF Member Posts: 8
    Two things come to mind.

    Don't feed trolls.
    Don't wrestle with a pig in the mud. You both get dirty. The pig likes it.
    Sophia
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853

    Aosaw said:

    Aosaw said:



    (Yes, it's fading; because as time goes by, people are becoming more and more aware of just how wrong it is to make those kinds of assumptions based on gender.)

    You realize it is only fading NOW because Modern Society/civilization is making it possible, in a less modernized civilization the differences between men and women is FAR more pronounced, yes there are outliers on each end of the scale but women didn't fullfill their "traditional" roles because men beat them into it (at least not in all cases) NATURE has a real say in the matter and to not recognize the difference between the sexes is to do a disservice to both and to nature.
    Nature enters into it only as far as culture allows. Our perspective for the last two-thousand years has been "Men on top, women on bottom", and it's only in the last fifty years or so that that concept has even begun to shift in a mainstream way.

    That being said, there's nothing wrong with an alternate setting having a different set of societal norms; and regardless of "historical accuracy", these worlds are created today, not five-hundred years ago. We should be moving toward a more modern fantasy paradigm, where the rule is "men and women are equals".

    I'm not criticizing worlds for the way they treat their genders; it's the author's prerogative. but when it comes to realism, we shouldn't always be basing it on "well, women in the real world aren't good fighters either". I think as a society we've moved beyond that.
    This is entirely wrong. By nature, we are humans. By personhood, we are male and female. This is the great category mistake of the past century or so here in the West.

    A nature is what something is; a person is who someone is. Within humanity their is one nature, which men and women share; but there are two personhoods, which we do not share. For the vast majority of human civilization, the sexes have behaved in fitting with their personhoods; they behaved in that way because it is how they actually are. Men are strong and offertory, while women are weak and receptive. Men are fathers, and women are mothers. These relationships exist in societies because that is simply who we are; men did not beat women into anything. Rather, men were being men, and women were being women. Women were pleased with being mothers, and men were pleased with being providers.

    Here in the 20th to 21st century West, we have became aberrant and decadent- and we have suffered for it; women have refused to be feminine; they have lost their personhood and become objects- and men have treated them so; while men have ceased to be masculine and are now becoming objectified in a way similar to women. Hence, the decline of our society...

    With regards to the specific topic, I would like to see modest art for women. I would like to see them depicted as meek, as mothers and nurturers within video game art. This is what will de-objectify them and will restore to them their dignity and personhood, as is fitting.

    However, this is unlikely to happen, so I simply ask for the art to be attractive and interesting. I am not concerned for realism, as we left that behind long ago.
    Thank you for taking the time to truly flesh out your opinion. I actually think most of your post is very observant and well-thought out, I agree with most of it; the only thing I disagree with is you calling women traditionally "weak" and "meek." From what I've observed, they are not weak, they just prefer to be *supporters* rather than the dominant person. And, indeed, it is in their nature. But I do not see that as weakness.
    NancyButtpeach
  • SilenceSilence Member Posts: 437
    @NancyButtpeach: I do not think the decline of society is related to a loss of what is essentially gender stereotypy. If anything, a loss of gender roles will help prevent the decline of our society, if you ask me. I'd rather have a girl be a good person than a comely lass, and I'd have a boy be a good person than a good provider.

    With respect to art, it's not that there is chainmail bikinis that bothers me. It's that at times, that's all there is to look at. There are not enough positive female role models in fantasy.
    Moira
  • ZeckulZeckul Member Posts: 1,036


    A nature is what something is; a person is who someone is. Within humanity their is one nature, which men and women share; but there are two personhoods, which we do not share.

    I'm glad some people still understand this notion. Nature defines what we are, the laws and bounds of our actions, the very fabric and design of our body and minds. Our very rationality and freedom are defined by nature. The social and cultural doesn't erase or replace it: nature defines us as social and cultural beings. There's no escape from what we are.

    It's a simple fact we can observe every day, that man and woman are different words for different realities, those of two different kinds of human beings; they have different genes, different reproductive roles, different sizes and weight, different voices, different predispositions, different talents, different ways of thinking, different ambitions. To deny the existence or significance of these differences, or to ascribe them to some purely artificial construct is self-denial, or some pervert existentialism.
    NancyButtpeach
  • SchneidendSchneidend Member Posts: 3,190
    Zeckul said:


    A nature is what something is; a person is who someone is. Within humanity their is one nature, which men and women share; but there are two personhoods, which we do not share.

    I'm glad some people still understand this notion. Nature defines what we are, the laws and bounds of our actions, the very fabric and design of our body and minds. Our very rationality and freedom are defined by nature. The social and cultural doesn't erase or replace it: nature defines us as social and cultural beings. There's no escape from what we are.

    It's a simple fact we can observe every day, that man and woman are different words for different realities, those of two different kinds of human beings; they have different genes, different reproductive roles, different sizes and weight, different voices, different predispositions, different talents, different ways of thinking, different ambitions. To deny the existence or significance of these differences, or to ascribe them to some purely artificial construct is self-denial, or some pervert existentialism.
    Nobody is denying that men and women are different. The idea that a woman being different from a man somehow meaning she can't stab things with pointy metal objects is what is absurd.
    MoiraJalilysemiticgoddess
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    edited August 2012
    Silence said:

    @NancyButtpeach: I do not think the decline of society is related to a loss of what is essentially gender stereotypy. If anything, a loss of gender roles will help prevent the decline of our society, if you ask me. I'd rather have a girl be a good person than a comely lass, and I'd have a boy be a good person than a good provider.

    I didn't use to either. Then my sister became a transexual with no job and no life. I would prefer that she be a comely lass than her personal idea of a "good person" which means taking advantage of the love of her family and expecting we will support every stupid thing she does.

    For me, that has caused me to be a big fan of traditional gender roles. It just works. Very few people can go against traditional gender roles WITHOUT becoming a bad person from what I've seen. They get arrogant and selfish because they are so proud of going against the grain. Now there's an exception to everything, thus I said "very few people." And when I say "big fan of traditional gender roles" I don't mean you can't borrow a few things. Take me for instance, I'm a dude but I'm kind of sensitive, jealous, and very caring about other people; some things people often associate with women.
    Zeckul said:

    To deny the existence or significance of these differences, or to ascribe them to some purely artificial construct is self-denial, or some pervert existentialism.

    There's the word; self-denial.
    NancyButtpeach
  • SilenceSilence Member Posts: 437
    @Quartz: I'm sorry to hear that, cannot be easy for either of you.

    Maybe I could relate my story so you can understand where I'm coming from too. In my house, my mother was the provider. She wanted both a job and a family, not just one or the other. She knew she wouldn't get that opportunity where was, so she left home - at 15 - and immigrated to a country where she could. In the end, she got everything she wanted. I'd see this as a model of success to aspire to: it is neither male nor female, it is just plain great. I'd take your caring qualities in a similar way...why should these qualities be specific to a gender? These are awesome qualities for anyone to have.

    I guess that's what I'm getting at: a successful person need not fill a gender role, and a female character should not be defined by just sex appeal. I know that in the end, it's fantasy and it's not real. But these games are popular and engaging because they seem real. I don't like the illusion being broken by the proverbial plate mail bikini.
    QuartzMoira
  • DeeDee Member Posts: 10,447
    Well, and in the end, every story is an allegory or a metaphor or a parable, whether the author intended it to be one or not. Whether it's fantasy or reality fiction, at its core it's a story being told by a person for a reason. Sometimes the author's message isn't always clear, and sometimes the author's message is best likened to a heavy object being swung at your head.

    When it comes to gender roles, most authors don't take a stance. And that's fine, really. Society has favored gender roles as we understand them to be, at least until the last century.

    I don't think anyone's saying that women and men are categorically the same; at least that isn't what I'm trying to say. All that I'm saying is that the role of "supporter" for women is more a product of society's expectations than the fact that a woman has a womb; and the role of "provider" for men is more a product of the fact that, for the most part, that's been the role they've had for all of human history, rather than the fact that men can pee standing up.

    If society had developed such that women did all the work in the field or in the mills, and the men stayed at home and kept house, then the roles would be reversed. Society would expect women to be strong both physically and intellectually, and society would expect men to be physically and mentally weak. Would women still be the ones giving birth? Yes, of course. Gender is gender; that twenty-third chromosome is essential. But it's not the only thing that makes a human being.

    The chainmail bikini is a reduction of character to its simplest parts. As an artist, you have to understand what kind of message that sends to your female viewers. It says, "You are only important for your breasts and your legs, and that only for as long as you keep them looking nice."

    I believe what's being called for here is a retirement of the scantily clad "armored" warrior, at least as a default artistic choice. There's probably still room for the fan-service character. But in an "enlightened" world, that fan-service character is self-aware; or at the very least, the artist is making a conscious choice for a reason that goes beyond pleasing the limbic centers of the male demographic.
    Moira
  • lmaoboatlmaoboat Member Posts: 72

    Aosaw said:

    Aosaw said:



    (Yes, it's fading; because as time goes by, people are becoming more and more aware of just how wrong it is to make those kinds of assumptions based on gender.)

    You realize it is only fading NOW because Modern Society/civilization is making it possible, in a less modernized civilization the differences between men and women is FAR more pronounced, yes there are outliers on each end of the scale but women didn't fullfill their "traditional" roles because men beat them into it (at least not in all cases) NATURE has a real say in the matter and to not recognize the difference between the sexes is to do a disservice to both and to nature.
    Nature enters into it only as far as culture allows. Our perspective for the last two-thousand years has been "Men on top, women on bottom", and it's only in the last fifty years or so that that concept has even begun to shift in a mainstream way.

    That being said, there's nothing wrong with an alternate setting having a different set of societal norms; and regardless of "historical accuracy", these worlds are created today, not five-hundred years ago. We should be moving toward a more modern fantasy paradigm, where the rule is "men and women are equals".

    I'm not criticizing worlds for the way they treat their genders; it's the author's prerogative. but when it comes to realism, we shouldn't always be basing it on "well, women in the real world aren't good fighters either". I think as a society we've moved beyond that.
    This is entirely wrong. By nature, we are humans. By personhood, we are male and female. This is the great category mistake of the past century or so here in the West.

    A nature is what something is; a person is who someone is. Within humanity their is one nature, which men and women share; but there are two personhoods, which we do not share. For the vast majority of human civilization, the sexes have behaved in fitting with their personhoods; they behaved in that way because it is how they actually are. Men are strong and offertory, while women are weak and receptive. Men are fathers, and women are mothers. These relationships exist in societies because that is simply who we are; men did not beat women into anything. Rather, men were being men, and women were being women. Women were pleased with being mothers, and men were pleased with being providers.

    Here in the 20th to 21st century West, we have became aberrant and decadent- and we have suffered for it; women have refused to be feminine; they have lost their personhood and become objects- and men have treated them so; while men have ceased to be masculine and are now becoming objectified in a way similar to women. Hence, the decline of our society...

    With regards to the specific topic, I would like to see modest art for women. I would like to see them depicted as meek, as mothers and nurturers within video game art. This is what will de-objectify them and will restore to them their dignity and personhood, as is fitting.

    However, this is unlikely to happen, so I simply ask for the art to be attractive and interesting. I am not concerned for realism, as we left that behind long ago.
    Wow, it's like I'm actually in the 1900's. Maybe you should take your 'biotruths' to somewhere like Stormfront, I think you'll find them more receptive.
  • QuartzQuartz Member Posts: 3,853
    lmaoboat said:

    Aosaw said:

    Aosaw said:



    (Yes, it's fading; because as time goes by, people are becoming more and more aware of just how wrong it is to make those kinds of assumptions based on gender.)

    You realize it is only fading NOW because Modern Society/civilization is making it possible, in a less modernized civilization the differences between men and women is FAR more pronounced, yes there are outliers on each end of the scale but women didn't fullfill their "traditional" roles because men beat them into it (at least not in all cases) NATURE has a real say in the matter and to not recognize the difference between the sexes is to do a disservice to both and to nature.
    Nature enters into it only as far as culture allows. Our perspective for the last two-thousand years has been "Men on top, women on bottom", and it's only in the last fifty years or so that that concept has even begun to shift in a mainstream way.

    That being said, there's nothing wrong with an alternate setting having a different set of societal norms; and regardless of "historical accuracy", these worlds are created today, not five-hundred years ago. We should be moving toward a more modern fantasy paradigm, where the rule is "men and women are equals".

    I'm not criticizing worlds for the way they treat their genders; it's the author's prerogative. but when it comes to realism, we shouldn't always be basing it on "well, women in the real world aren't good fighters either". I think as a society we've moved beyond that.
    This is entirely wrong. By nature, we are humans. By personhood, we are male and female. This is the great category mistake of the past century or so here in the West.

    A nature is what something is; a person is who someone is. Within humanity their is one nature, which men and women share; but there are two personhoods, which we do not share. For the vast majority of human civilization, the sexes have behaved in fitting with their personhoods; they behaved in that way because it is how they actually are. Men are strong and offertory, while women are weak and receptive. Men are fathers, and women are mothers. These relationships exist in societies because that is simply who we are; men did not beat women into anything. Rather, men were being men, and women were being women. Women were pleased with being mothers, and men were pleased with being providers.

    Here in the 20th to 21st century West, we have became aberrant and decadent- and we have suffered for it; women have refused to be feminine; they have lost their personhood and become objects- and men have treated them so; while men have ceased to be masculine and are now becoming objectified in a way similar to women. Hence, the decline of our society...

    With regards to the specific topic, I would like to see modest art for women. I would like to see them depicted as meek, as mothers and nurturers within video game art. This is what will de-objectify them and will restore to them their dignity and personhood, as is fitting.

    However, this is unlikely to happen, so I simply ask for the art to be attractive and interesting. I am not concerned for realism, as we left that behind long ago.
    Wow, it's like I'm actually in the 1900's. Maybe you should take your 'biotruths' to somewhere like Stormfront, I think you'll find them more receptive.
    Come on man, it's been respectful this far can we keep it that way please?
  • Sir_CarnifexSir_Carnifex Member Posts: 47
    edited August 2012
    Interesting. A person believes that men and women are inherently different and he's a chauvinist pig! How far society has sunk. Nancy is actually pretty much spot on with the assessment of how society has become, reversing roles (believe it or not, men and women tend to excel at different things!), essentially doing away with gender.
    Quartz
  • Sir_CarnifexSir_Carnifex Member Posts: 47
    Oh, and for the record, most fantasy art (especially concerning women, but certainly not limited to) is stupid. BG, fortunately, was pretty decent in this regard.
    Quartz
  • JolanthusJolanthus Member Posts: 292

    Well, then, allow me to introduce you to a woman who could probably kill any man on the planet in armed melee combat. http://www.badassoftheweek.com/lamaupin.html

    You are now my new hero for bringing this awesome woman to my attention. How has she avoided my notice for all these years!
    jhart1018DragonspearJalily
  • lmaoboatlmaoboat Member Posts: 72
    edited August 2012
    Quartz said:


    Come on man, it's been respectful this far can we keep it that way please?

    I think respect goes out the window when you start claiming women not staying in the kitchen is leading to the downfall of society.

  • lmaoboatlmaoboat Member Posts: 72
    edited August 2012
    *doublepost*
    Quartz
  • Sir_CarnifexSir_Carnifex Member Posts: 47
    lmaoboat said:

    Quartz said:


    Come on man, it's been respectful this far can we keep it that way please?

    I think respect goes out the window when you start claiming women not staying in the kitchen is leading to the downfall of society.

    Except he didn't say that. Nice of you to twist his words.
    Quartz
  • lmaoboatlmaoboat Member Posts: 72



    lmaoboat said:

    Quartz said:


    Come on man, it's been respectful this far can we keep it that way please?

    I think respect goes out the window when you start claiming women not staying in the kitchen is leading to the downfall of society.

    Except he didn't say that. Nice of you to twist his words.
    It's exactly what he implied when he said the blurring the gender roles was leading to some alleged "decline of our society."
    KharasDoveberryKlonoaJalily
  • LemernisLemernis Member, Moderator Posts: 4,318
    edited August 2012
    Martial arts (smart use of physics and anatomy) can be an equalizer, eg, a woman being able to judo flip a man twice her size and strength, deliver a disabling strike to a vulnerable area, etc.. But when it comes to MMA style fighting, a stronger, more massive opponent will typically win if he or she can grapple the other on the mat floor. Superior strength is also decisive with a barrage of blows once the adversary is dazed and down.

    I think when it comes to sword-and-shield style combat (no holds barred, to the death) strength is certain be an enormous benefit. Honestly, I do think that if women were fighting as such in RL they would almost have to develop fighting styles based on extremely high dexterity with as little encumbrance as possible. I.e., float like a butterfly, sting like a bee. For example, a swashbuckler with a rapier. And on the whole they would probably, of necessity, tend to be monks.

    Another thing: there is little correlation between muscle definition/striation and actual strength. Power lifters, for example, aren't ripped. So women bodybuilders with better defined muscles than some men actually aren't necessarily any stronger in many cases.
    Doveberry
  • NancyButtpeachNancyButtpeach Member Posts: 38
    edited August 2012
    Lmaoboat: Your posts don't make any sense. What else can I say?

    To be clear, the difference between men and women is not a difference merely in role. If it is a role, then anyone can play it. For instance, if the women desires to play the offertory role of the man, she can; and if the man wishes to play the receptive role, he can.

    Importantly, sex is not a role- it is us. That is, it is who we are, our personhood. Our masculinity and femininity are what differentiate us from most other creatures in the universe. We are not just "whats," we are "whos." Being a woman is one unique way of being human, while being a man is the other unique way of being human. When we abandon that, we lose out personhood and become objects. It is then that women become things, things to be used- mainly for sex. It is also then that children become things. This is why in our society fertility, rather than being a gift that we can use to create another living human being, another person born out of love, has become a symptom of a disease to be treated; and the unwanted child has become a thing to be disposed of. This is the decadence of a culture that misunderstands sexuality on a fundamental level. If you abandon your personhood, eventually you embrace death- and people, including yourself, become things. When we lose out personhood, we lose the part of us that makes us mirror the divine.

    So, with regards to fantasy art, I would like women to be adorned modestly, and I would like for them to be displayed in ways that understand them as receptive and motherly. If I were on the design team, that's the direction in which I would put the art. Unfortunately, most video games and other forms of entertainment are made in the West Coast- in a place where the ultimate degradation of women has its empire: the porn industry. No, that is not a coincidence.

    On another note: to be clear, when I used the term "weak," I did not mean it in an insulting way. A better term is delicate. Women can and should be delicate, and men should not be. That is what I meant to say. Women should emulate flowers; they have a strength of their own, but they are not masculine- and when they try to imitate masculine strength, they come off as unsightly, as evidenced by the bodybuilder photos.
    Quartz
  • DoveberryDoveberry Member Posts: 24
    edited August 2012
    @NancyButtpeach

    It is true that women will never naturally equal men when it comes to physical strength. That's just the way it is; no need to be shy about it. I'm sure that some individuals are born differently, but they would be few and far between. That fact does not mean that a woman cannot be a fighter. In the real world, she would have to be a different kind of fighter (float like a butterfly, sting like a bee, as Lemernis said), but there is nothing in a woman's mind or predisposition that is stopping her from pursuing such a career. Also, this is a fantasy world in which at least half the people wield magic of some sort, so the claim that female warriors are unrealistic is simply untrue.

    People do not become "things" when we drop the gender roles; they become individuals. Gender is secondary, and mostly unnecessary as a way of defining oneself. Allowing people to be individuals is probably the most precious and important achievement of western society, and it greatly upsets me that you would label it as dangerous simply because it does not fit in with your dated world view.

    I don't want to turn this into a discussion about religion or abortion, but let me just say that societal health goes up when abortion is available. It is a very good thing to have access to as a society, and the only reasons one could possibly have to disagree with it would have to be religious ones.

    I strongly disagree with the idea that women should be portrayed modestly (what an awful word). They should be portrayed exactly as they are. Each woman in a fantasy setting should be portrayed based on her own specific personality; not as a stereotype. Some women are exhibitionists, others are leaders. Others are delicate and shy. There should be no rules for portraying any character in a fantasy setting; every single character should be allowed to be what they are.

    Furthermore, I did not find the female bodybuilders unsightly. That is your subjective opinion. Please do not try to pass is off as fact.
    Post edited by Doveberry on
    jhart1018DragonspearJalilySanctifer
  • IchigoRXCIchigoRXC Member Posts: 1,001
    Nope, no I refuse to enter this conversation. If no one can see how stupid this argument is then it is a lost cause anyway. @NazgulUF is spot on.
  • WonKoWonKo Member Posts: 72
    @NancyButtpeach is engaging in sophistry, possibly as a form of trolling. Points aren unsubstantiated and not worth rebutting. Nuff said.

    With regards to the OP, I am always in favour of more realistic armour to a point. If we are gonna be sexually exploitative at least make it gender balanced... i.e. Paladin in Chainmail Jocks for every chainmail bikini.
  • Permidion_StarkPermidion_Stark Member Posts: 4,861
    DrugarIchigoRXCQuartz
  • ZeckulZeckul Member Posts: 1,036
    edited August 2012

    Nobody is denying that men and women are different. The idea that a woman being different from a man somehow meaning she can't stab things with pointy metal objects is what is absurd.

    She certainly can. What I find intriguing is that the system would reify racial differences (+1DEX for Elves, +1CON for Dwarves for instance) but downplay sex to a purely aesthetic choice. It's not a big deal, technically, but it is IMO a good example of how natural differences between sexes is a taboo today. While on the other hand we still keep men and women separated in all physical competitions...

  • immagikmanimmagikman Member Posts: 664
    @Zeckul
    I think it is a weird quirk of Political Correctness that causes the problems with having legitimate discussions on the differences of Race and Sex, somehow to discuss it is viewed as negative and wrong..so no true light can be shed on the issues....at least that is how it appears to me.
    Quartz
  • immagikmanimmagikman Member Posts: 664
    LadyRhian said:

    @Nancybuttpeach And yet, there have been women warriors in other cultures. The "Amazons" for one (not the greek legend, but the horse-riding warrior women they were based on in what is modern-day Russia and Ancient Sarmatia) Not every culture saw things as exclusively male- Warriors, Women- mothers. 20% of Scythian-Sarmatian graves contain women with typically "male" artifacts such as arrowheads, Swords and knives, as well as saddles, and the females are dressed in the same warrior garb as the males. In Tabriz in 2004, they discovered the grave of a warrior woman of ancient Iran.

    Here's a link to Wikipedia, and on the side, there is a link to women warriors in different periods of history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman_warrior

    I agree, however you do have to admit those were the EXCEPTION and not the rule so to speak. Stereotypes are not necessarily bad as long as one understands that Individuals do not have to fit the stereotype. The Individual is what should be the primary concern in specific cases, the "Generalization" is a necessary evil for dealing with entire societies.
Sign In or Register to comment.