# Female armour in fantasy books/games



## ALB2012

I found this a very interesting article so decided to share.

Some of these ladies armour is not excatly...practical unless they work on the assumption their enemies are too busy drooling to stab them

Fantasy Armor and Lady Bits - Mad Art Lab


----------



## Steerpike

Could be magical armor. I mean, if a ring can provide someone protection then surey an enchanted chainmail bikini or a codpiece can do the same


----------



## ALB2012

This is useful too
Dark Treasury: Dark Fantasy Writing Resources


----------



## SeverinR

I think it is traditional male geeks writing female skin revealing garb or armor.
Armor can be appealing and still be protective.

Google'd female armor, didn't find reasonable female armor.  
female armor - Bing Images
This one isn't bad, but her chest is still exposed even though it isn't showing skin.

I did notice, "female armor" is more often shown as leather, not metal.

I will admit, I had a character that wore very revealing outfits, that did so just to distract men. But most of my female characters are more realistic and wear amor that is useful.


----------



## ALB2012

Well there is that...


----------



## Jabrosky

For me it depends on the environment and the character's fighting style. A lot of my heroines live in very hot environments and have fighting styles emphasizing agility or mobility rather than brute strength. In their case extensive armor would actually discomfort and hinder them. However, my male characters in the same settings similarly don't wear a lot of armor either. I agree that the common double standard is annoying and has its roots in male prejudices.


----------



## saellys

Straight talk: it can be hard to squeeze into a flat breastplate, but shaping it to fit around the boobies will lead a swordpoint or spear straight into your heart. This is probably a major reason why so many examples of armor for women are predominantly leather, and also why so many people go off the deep end of unbelievability with the Slave Leia look, just so their characters won't be mistaken for a man (heaven forfend!).

Sometimes this is tolerable--Dejah Thoris had a perpetually bare midriff in _John Carter of Mars_, but she also had a body type that suggested she could actually do most of the things her character did, and it was great fun to watch her fight. Other times, when the fur-bikini-clad female character in question has skinny little twig arms and we're meant to believe she can actually draw a longbow or wield a greatsword, it's just insulting to everyone involved.

Women Fighters In Reasonable Armor is a great resource for inspiration (which sadly has not been updated in a while). There's everything from boiled leather to full plate. Boobplate appears now and then, but it's usually toned down compared to, say, _Magic: The Gathering_ artwork--some of those cards get pretty Madonna. 

I also adore OtherWorld Miniatures' figurine concept art. They all present unmistakeably as female, but their gear is appropriate to their character class and purpose and they look like they can actually fight. 

For wonderful modern examples, check out Virginia Hankins and Jessica Post. They're both professional jousters and they do just fine in masculine-style armor (Hankins' has a bit more of an hourglass shape, but would still help deflect a blade rather than bring it in for the kill). Point is, if your female fighter's gear is appropriate for the environment and her purposes, you're set. If that necessitates putting her in full plate that will get her mistaken for a man, figure out whether or not that's a problem in your world, and respond to that organically. If a character is jousting with bare skin--anywhere--you have a problem.


----------



## Sheilawisz

I know that this is about female armour in books and games, but anyway I wanted to say that I absolutely loved Alice's Armour in the Tim Burton's 2010 _Alice in Wonderland_ film with Mia Wasikowska.

That armour was so cool that, after the first time that I watched the movie, I started to consider giving armour to my Mages... It would be a great combination for their Longswords, but in the end I abandoned the idea.

To watch Alice fighting with armour, shield and sword was the best part of the entire movie =)


----------



## saellys

I didn't seen _Alice in Wonderland_, but I felt the same way about Snow White's armor in _Snow White and the Huntsman_. It was gorgeous.


----------



## Saigonnus

I always thought depictions in cover art and magazine articles ridiculous in many cases, especially chain mail bikinis that offer basically no protection at all. I believe it's perfectly reasonable to have women dressed in armor that takes their curves into account without sacrificing the overall protection the armor offers. If armorer can fashion a perfectly fitted suit of armor for men of all shapes and sizes, they could do much the same for women. If the ladies are particularly buxom, their charms could be cinched (like supposedly happened to Judy Garland playing Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz) so they aren't SO pronounced and yet not so much that they would be uncomfortable while wearing armor for a hard day's ride.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

The sad thing is that the reason we get this kind of thing is because it's excatly what the target demographic (presumably teen boys) actually want.

Here, look at this: 








That's the female ebony armor from Skyrim. Boobilicious cuirass aside, it's both badass and sensible. (And really, the boobsplate is probably mostly a matter of making it more distinct to the male version.) You can fault Bethesda Softworks for a lot of things, but they do tend to stick with a certain stylistic vision when they make their games.

Now, here is a mod replacer for the same armor that a player made:







Somebody seriously put actual effort into making that. Somebody learned how to extract a model from the game, edit it in a 3D software, adjust its compatibility with the game in a second software, edit the textures in a third software, and then put it all back into the game - all of it for free, in his spare time - because he thought it was better than playing a female character who's actually covered in armor.

This is exactly the kind of person the video game industry is counting on to buy their games, pretty much.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Jabrosky said:


> For me it depends on the environment and the character's fighting style. A lot of my heroines live in very hot environments and have fighting styles emphasizing agility or mobility rather than brute strength. In their case extensive armor would actually discomfort and hinder them.



Eh. All armor is hot and uncomfortable. You wear it anyway because being hot and uncomfortable is still preferable to getting stabbed, and most armors do not slow you down nearly enough to make a vital difference. 

If wearing armor in battle was not more beneficial than _not _wearing armor, nobody would bother with them.


----------



## saellys

I've always been really impressed with the female and male equivalent outfits and armor in the Elder Scrolls series, so that mod gave me a bout of nausea.


----------



## Jabrosky

Anders Ã„mting said:


> Eh. All armor is hot and uncomfortable. You wear it anyway because being hot and uncomfortable is still preferable to getting stabbed, and most armors do not slow you down nearly enough to make a vital difference.
> 
> If wearing armor in battle was not more beneficial than _not _wearing armor, nobody would bother with them.


And there actually exist many examples of societies in which the warriors practically wore no armor. Most pre-colonial African soldiers, including the ancient Egyptian and Nubian ones, didn't wear much armor despite having bronze or iron metallurgy. Considering that Africa has a _much _hotter climate than Europe where armor was more in vogue, that makes sense. If armor feels hot in Europe, imagine how stifling it would feel in Africa out of all places.


----------



## The Writer's Realms

saellys said:


> I didn't seen _Alice in Wonderland_, but I felt the same way about Snow White's armor in _Snow White and the Huntsman_. It was gorgeous.


Totally agree. Bad ass plate, looked amazing, and practical.


----------



## Kit

I have trained in a number of fighting styles, both unarmed and with various weapons, and in every single one of them you really *NEED* to have the chest flattened and out of the way as much as possible. I always wear tight compression bras, and even so the chest can still hamper certain movements to a really annoying extent. It's like trying to fight while wearing a harness and two bags of flour strapped to your chest.

Any fighting outfit that has the boobs hanging half out is ridiculous. Outfits that "lift and separate" are great if you want to pick up guys at the bar, but not if you need to fight.


----------



## ALB2012

Well I know which set I would prefer in a sword fight...
The first is scary badass and female and the second is well not going to protect any of the bits that will kill her if she gets stabbed in them...

When I was playing Dragon Age someone on the forums said he had mods to make all the lady characters naked...


----------



## SeverinR

saellys said:


> Straight talk: it can be hard to squeeze into a flat breastplate, but shaping it to fit around the boobies will lead a swordpoint or spear straight into your heart. This is probably a major reason why so many examples of armor for women are predominantly leather, and also why so many people go off the deep end of unbelievability with the Slave Leia look, just so their characters won't be mistaken for a man (heaven forfend!).
> 
> Sometimes this is tolerable--Dejah Thoris had a perpetually bare midriff in _John Carter of Mars_, but she also had a body type that suggested she could actually do most of the things her character did, and it was great fun to watch her fight. Other times, when the fur-bikini-clad female character in question has skinny little twig arms and we're meant to believe she can actually draw a longbow or wield a greatsword, it's just insulting to everyone involved.
> 
> Women Fighters In Reasonable Armor is a great resource for inspiration (which sadly has not been updated in a while). There's everything from boiled leather to full plate. Boobplate appears now and then, but it's usually toned down compared to, say, _Magic: The Gathering_ artwork--some of those cards get pretty Madonna.
> 
> I also adore OtherWorld Miniatures' figurine concept art. They all present unmistakeably as female, but their gear is appropriate to their character class and purpose and they look like they can actually fight.
> 
> For wonderful modern examples, check out Virginia Hankins and Jessica Post. They're both professional jousters and they do just fine in masculine-style armor (Hankins' has a bit more of an hourglass shape, but would still help deflect a blade rather than bring it in for the kill). Point is, if your female fighter's gear is appropriate for the environment and her purposes, you're set. If that necessitates putting her in full plate that will get her mistaken for a man, figure out whether or not that's a problem in your world, and respond to that organically. If a character is jousting with bare skin--anywhere--you have a problem.


Rather then form fit the breasts, make it like a shirt form, with the breast area as one bulge instead of two. Then the blades aren't angled towards the heart.
The scrawny little muscle girls should not be using swords or bows, as if they were well versed in their use, they would have at least moderate muscles. Scrawny girls are house maids or nobles that practice art or music.  They don't work for a living.




Anders Ã„mting said:


> Eh. All armor is hot and uncomfortable. You wear it anyway because being hot and uncomfortable is still preferable to getting stabbed, and most armors do not slow you down nearly enough to make a vital difference.
> 
> If wearing armor in battle was not more beneficial than _not _wearing armor, nobody would bother with them.


As history shows, when armor did little to protect the warrior, they left it behind.  



Jabrosky said:


> And there actually exist many examples of societies in which the warriors practically wore no armor. Most pre-colonial African soldiers, including the ancient Egyptian and Nubian ones, didn't wear much armor despite having bronze or iron metallurgy. Considering that Africa has a _much _hotter climate than Europe where armor was more in vogue, that makes sense. If armor feels hot in Europe, imagine how stifling it would feel in Africa out of all places.



I think the crusades and armor cost alot of lives related to heat and dehydration didn't they?  Armor is very good at keeping heat in on hot days, and very good at disapating heat on cold days.  Opposite of what a person wants.

Either you wear armor to protect you, or you wear clothes to look good. It is very hard to do both and be practical.  I think if fantasy armor of today was ever made in history, it was probably a parody to amuse the audience, rather then actually to fight in.  Such as chain maille under wear? Although all armor was expensive to make, so it might not ever been created until modern times.

One thing, though. I bet removing part of ones armor on a hot day was common. Say the vambraces or guantlets(arms), or the greeves(legs)
And a female with these gone and bare skin might look nice (even better when she has some muscles to display).  But if no fighting was expected they would probably remove all armor.  Having the breast plate on would be better then no armor.


----------



## SeverinR

For some reason I can't edit, computer is acting wierd today.

Note:
The thoughts posted are imho.


----------



## wordwalker

SeverinR said:


> Rather then form fit the breasts, make it like a shirt form, with the breast area as one bulge instead of two. Then the blades aren't angled towards the heart.



Seems like a good compromise-- even if it's not flattening enough to be realistic for combat (as Kit said) it's something for artists to consider if they still need to give armored women a figure. Anything's better than getting cleaved for the sake of cleavage.



SeverinR said:


> I think the crusades and armor cost alot of lives related to heat and dehydration didn't they?  Armor is very good at keeping heat in on hot days, and very good at disapating heat on cold days.  Opposite of what a person wants.
> 
> Either you wear armor to protect you, or you wear clothes to look good.



Quite true; weather and such matter. Beyond that, heroes have other reasons they may not use all the armor they could. The world's first full-strength D&D party was very clear about that:



> The Company took little gear of war, for their hope was in secrecy not in battle. Aragorn had AndÃºril but no other weapon, and he went forth clad only in rusty green and brown, as a Ranger of the wilderness...



So a lot of heroes expect to be dealing with hostile cities or whole armies rather than groups small enough to fight, so they'd want light or no armor that left stealth possible. Ditto for thieves, spies, and other city intrigue types-- and also for merchants, noblemen, and anyone else who's expecting to talk rather than fight at the moment.

And once you bring someone down to light armor, it's possible that the trickier women might want something that looked even less like fighting gear. But... well, that's no reason to get ludicrous.


----------



## saellys

wordwalker said:


> The world's first full-strength D&D party



I lol'd.


----------



## Anders Ã„mting

Jabrosky said:


> And there actually exist many examples of societies in which the warriors practically wore no armor. Most pre-colonial African soldiers, including the ancient Egyptian and Nubian ones, didn't wear much armor despite having bronze or iron metallurgy. Considering that Africa has a _much _hotter climate than Europe where armor was more in vogue, that makes sense. If armor feels hot in Europe, imagine how stifling it would feel in Africa out of all places.



Actually, the Egyptians did have some form of scale armor, I believe, though it was probably expensive. And note that armor was common in ancient Greece; a place that also has pretty hot climate. (For that matter, "Europe" doesn't exactly have a uniform climate.) There's also the fact that people in hot climates are more tolerant to heat than people from cold climates - something I experienced for myself when I visited Tunisia.

So, I'm not entirely convinced this is just a matter of warm weather. There are probably other factors.

Anyway, my point was that nobody is going to skip armor because "they focus on agility." Dying of heatstroke, _maybe_, but it's pretty much a myth that unarmored fighters can just dance around a warrior in armor. Most people who went into battle without armor probably wished they had one.


----------



## Meteora

Its because artists overseuxalise women, for whatever reason. Practicality is usually thrown out of the window, not always but usually when they draw up women. Why is that? Probably because sex appeal and everyone follows the same guideline: there needs to be less armour and more flesh. Its gone overboard and I don't really see it stopping for a while. While it bewilders the people who question its practicality, the mainstream audience usually will buy into it just because it looks good.

I question some of the armour designs that the artists come up with, but those are usually the downright ridiculous ones (bikini armour). I've seen so many of them and have gotten accustomed to how MMOs will always have these nicely styled but impractical armour that I honestly don't really care much.

Though its not to say its right, either. You don't need to reveal more of the feminine physiology to make them female. Personality also comes a long way, but that's getting into character design and that's straying off topic of armour.


----------



## Ankari

I find it amusing that a female character in armor must be identifiable as a female in armor.  Why?  When this woman is on the battlefield, what does she gain?  I would actually think it's a disadvantage because the enemy will all point to the woman and shout to one another "Hey!  That's a woman!"

Anyone watch football?  The New York Giants defensive line _looks_ intimidating because they all look physically similar with the same style face mask.  Anyone watch _300?_  How intimidating did the Immortals look?  They dressed alike and wore the same mask.

In war, you don't want to stand out like a sore thumb.  You want to present one face to your enemy and complete the strategy at hand.  Why would a woman, or a rich lord, or the hero of your novel, want to dress in golden armor wearing a helmet with a red plume ten feet tall?

There is oversexualizing a woman in armor and there is a lesser form of oversexualizing a woman in armor.  Don't do either.


----------



## wordwalker

None of this has anything to do with chainmail bikinis, but:



Ankari said:


> Anyone watch football?  The New York Giants defensive line _looks_ intimidating because they all look physically similar with the same style face mask.  Anyone watch _300?_  How intimidating did the Immortals look?  They dressed alike and wore the same mask.
> 
> In war, you don't want to stand out like a sore thumb.



True enough, the average soldier doesn't want to be a target. And the real point of uniforms, marching drill, and so on, was to make troops stop thinking like individuals who could be killed or run away.

But sometimes you do want to stand out. If you're a leader you want your men to see you fight-- though that only goes so far, when you're right in with the troops and yelling the orders, they know who you are. Or if you're a lord trying to outdo other lords (and there aren't many other kinds) or a champion trying to make a name in the field, you need to stand out, hence the heraldry and favorite weapons. Many knights fought for sheer love of glory more than any cause, and when bows and guns started taking over war they said "Now there's no _point_ in mass killing if we can't get the credit for it!"

(Besides, if we're at the plate or even chainmail level, that's a _rich_ fighter who couldn't find many equally-armored people to blend in with if she wanted to.)

Or, it isn't always organized war. A team of individuals might need their own gear to go with their own skills, or be too busy running from the burning city to have grabbed matching armor.

For standard soldiers, uniform uniformity means a lot. But a story can have hundreds of ways of varying from that.

(And none of them justify a plate-armored Cleavage Window.)


----------



## Steerpike

What people did or didn't wear in the real world only gets you so far when dealing with a fantasy setting, however. An author might readily invent reasons in her world for things being the way they are. Through magic, a simple necklace, ring, or minimalist piece of armor may protect the wearer as well or better than the most heavily-armored ensemble they could throw together.

You've also got characters like Conan, who are generally depicted as wearing little or no armor. Conan does fine in battle, whether large-scale or one-on-one, because it is a Fantasy, and he's just tough enough and skilled enough to pull it off. There might well be a female equivalent similarly-clad, without detriment in battle, for the same reasons as Conan (i.e. for no reason at all apart from sheer bad-assery).

The problem with these depictions of female armor in fantasy isn't that 'some' women are depicted in that way. The problem is that virtually all of them are. If you brought the norm down to the same level of male characters, with most shown in a more conventionally sensible and practical manner, with the occasional badass or magic-wearing character who gets by with the slimmest of armor (or none at all), then I don't think there's a problem. Probably won't happen in gaming until there are a lot more women in the industry, and even then I sometimes wonder (I know female artists who draw highly-sexualized images of women; the difference is they draw them of men as well).


----------



## Graylorne

Steerpike said:


> What people did or didn't wear in the real world only gets you so far when dealing with a fantasy setting, however. An author might readily invent reasons in her world for things being the way they are. Through magic, a simple necklace, ring, or minimalist piece of armor may protect the wearer as well or better than the most heavily-armored ensemble they could throw together.
> 
> You've also got characters like Conan, who are generally depicted as wearing little or no armor. Conan does fine in battle, whether large-scale or one-on-one, because it is a Fantasy, and he's just tough enough and skilled enough to pull it off. There might well be a female equivalent similarly-clad, without detriment in battle, for the same reasons as Conan (i.e. for no reason at all apart from sheer bad-assery).
> 
> The problem with these depictions of female armor in fantasy isn't that 'some' women are depicted in that way. The problem is that virtually all of them are. If you brought the norm down to the same level of male characters, with most shown in a more conventionally sensible and practical manner, with the occasional badass or magic-wearing character who gets by with the slimmest of armor (or none at all), then I don't think there's a problem. Probably won't happen in gaming until there are a lot more women in the industry, and even then I sometimes wonder (I know female artists who draw highly-sexualized images of women; the difference is they draw them of men as well).




I'd say something like this (Keira Knightly as Guinevere in 'Arthur' 2004) is pretty accurate (given the idea that many Celts fought nearly naked and heavily painted, what probably isn't true) http://i1.cdnds.net/12/22/618x865/movies_20_memorable_movie_queens_15.jpg


----------



## Jabrosky

Steerpike said:


> The problem with these depictions of female armor in fantasy isn't that 'some' women are depicted in that way. The problem is that virtually all of them are. If you brought the norm down to the same level of male characters, with most shown in a more conventionally sensible and practical manner, with the occasional badass or magic-wearing character who gets by with the slimmest of armor (or none at all), then I don't think there's a problem. Probably won't happen in gaming until there are a lot more women in the industry, and even then I sometimes wonder (I know female artists who draw highly-sexualized images of women; the difference is they draw them of men as well).


For me the true crux of the issue is the sexual double standard. I don't have a problem with scantily clad characters _per se_; after all, entire real world cultures have gotten away with wearing little clothing (although most of these tend to come from societies and environments very different from the stereotypical fantasy setting). What's unfair is that only one sex gets the sexy treatment, which betrays a sentiment that only men's sexual desires matter. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander too.


----------



## Ireth

Graylorne said:


> I'd say something like this (Keira Knightly as Guinevere in 'Arthur' 2004) is pretty accurate (given the idea that many Celts fought nearly naked and heavily painted, what probably isn't true) http://i1.cdnds.net/12/22/618x865/movies_20_memorable_movie_queens_15.jpg



Heh. I do have one Celtic character who once fought in nothing but a torn and knotted cloak for a loincloth, but it was justified because he'd just fallen in battle and magically come back to life stark-naked. None of the clothes on the corpses around him would fit, since he's 6'7", so he just grabbed what he could for modesty's sake. And amusingly, he was painted blue as well -- not with woad, but with Fae blood from his slaughtered foes. XD


----------



## Graylorne

Ireth said:


> Heh. I do have one Celtic character who once fought in nothing but a torn and knotted cloak for a loincloth, but it was justified because he'd just fallen in battle and magically come back to life stark-naked. None of the clothes on the corpses around him would fit, since he's 6'7", so he just grabbed what he could for modesty's sake. And amusingly, he was painted blue as well -- not with woad, but with Fae blood from his slaughtered foes. XD



Ah, impressive! Nice idea, btw. Woad-blueblooded Fae... the snobs.


----------



## saellys

Graylorne said:


> I'd say something like this (Keira Knightly as Guinevere in 'Arthur' 2004) is pretty accurate (given the idea that many Celts fought nearly naked and heavily painted, what probably isn't true) http://i1.cdnds.net/12/22/618x865/movies_20_memorable_movie_queens_15.jpg



And I think it's worth noting that that getup actually keeps her boobs out of her way (especially important since this version of Guinevere was primarily an archer), instead of presenting them directly in the path of her arms. Historical accuracy or lack thereof aside, they had their cake and ate it too with a scantily-clad-but-still-badass woman.


----------



## Kit

Graylorne said:


> I'd say something like this (Keira Knightly as Guinevere in 'Arthur' 2004) is pretty accurate (given the idea that many Celts fought nearly naked and heavily painted, what probably isn't true) http://i1.cdnds.net/12/22/618x865/movies_20_memorable_movie_queens_15.jpg



Since she's flat-chested (Keira deserves a medal for not getting a boob job, as most actresses in her sphere have done- and you can bet she's been pressured), most of that actually looks practical to me on first glance- except for all the dangly strings. She'd better hope she doesn't have to do any close-up hand-to-hand (ie grappling) with all those convenient  "handles" to get grabbed and immobilized by.

The hair, too.... it's not as bad as many I've seen, but when you fight, you want your hair either chopped off or tied firmly out of the way so that you can see, and the bad guys can't grab you by it.


----------



## SeverinR

Kit said:


> Since she's flat-chested (Keira deserves a medal for not getting a boob job, as most actresses in her sphere have done- and you can bet she's been pressured), most of that actually looks practical to me on first glance- except for all the dangly strings. She'd better hope she doesn't have to do any close-up hand-to-hand (ie grappling) with all those convenient  "handles" to get grabbed and immobilized by.
> 
> The hair, too.... it's not as bad as many I've seen, but when you fight, you want your hair either chopped off or tied firmly out of the way so that you can see, and the bad guys can't grab you by it.



I think I must disagree with you.
Kiera is not flat chested. Compared to the silicon zepplins of others in show business she looks small, but these picts show she is properly endowed. 
Kiera Knightly - Bing Images
I do agree, natural is better then excessively fake.


----------



## Kit

SeverinR said:


> I think I must disagree with you.
> Kiera is not flat chested. Compared to the silicon zepplins of others in show business she looks small, but these picts show she is properly endowed.
> Kiera Knightly - Bing Images
> I do agree, natural is better then excessively fake.



My argument would be that  EVERY woman's naturally developed chest is "properly endowed". Our modern western society- especially in Hollywood- does not agree. 

When I say "flat chested", I don't mean it as an insult. Gods, I wish I was flat-chested- I wish this every day, especially while trying to perform a pak sau. I think Kiera looks incredible (altho she tends to be somewhat underweight much of the time) and as I said, I admire her for not carving up her body to cater to twisted media ideals.


----------



## ALB2012

Yeah Keira Knightly is a beautiful woman, she needs no enhancement. 
On the matter of magic armour, it is the magic which provides the armour not the material itself. As someone said a ring or amulet could provide some form of barrier or protection and the wearer could get away with wearing normal clothes or in fact nothing at all.

I know in many RPGs the rings and such provide protection against a specific type of magic or monster.

I am in agreement about the double standards, most of the images of the woman in armour the ladies are ... rather large up top.   Now obviously buxom lasses have the right to be warriors etc but surely not all of the women would be that way? I guess it is an ideal, or rather a perceived ideal and the armour they wear enhances that. Platemail covers most of you and so that supposed allure is gone. Male or female the shape is just person shaped not specific. 

Most of the male characters are pretty unrealistic too, toned, abs, tanned, muscular etc etc. It is not nearly so bad but still a stereotype. Now one would assume a warrior is pretty fit but even so.

It is quite amusing, I have just started playing Star Wars online and some of the NPCs are pretty podgy, they all all sizes and colours, short, fat, tall, skinny, white, black, grey, green, red etc.  The armour is pretty generic. The female armour fits the characters curves but is sensible. 

Ok that was rather meandering sorry, I think my brain has run away...


----------



## saellys

ALB2012 said:


> Most of the male characters are pretty unrealistic too, toned, abs, tanned, muscular etc etc. It is not nearly so bad but still a stereotype. Now one would assume a warrior is pretty fit but even so.



I see this argument a whole lot on the Internet, without the "not nearly so bad" caveat. It's a false equivalence. In fantasy art and comic books (where this comes up a lot) and the suchlike, men draw male characters they way they want to look. Men draw female characters _the way men want women to look_. All too rarely are women consulted regarding how they want to be portrayed. Women make up a tiny percentage of creative professionals in the gaming/comic book/fantasy art world, for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with lack of effort on their part, so even though we're living in the 21st century and sexism is supposed to be over, the overwhelming majority of people creating things for our consumption are men. 



ALB2012 said:


> It is quite amusing, I have just started playing Star Wars online and some of the NPCs are pretty podgy, they all all sizes and colours, short, fat, tall, skinny, white, black, grey, green, red etc.  The armour is pretty generic. The female armour fits the characters curves but is sensible.



_Star Wars_ was pretty utopian as far as body types were concerned, at least in the original trilogy. The fighter pilots in particular were all shapes and sizes (casting English stage actors will do that). That was never used for cheap laughs--at no point did anyone toss Jek Porkins a space sausage so he'd break his chair, and no one had trouble getting into the cockpit. They were still all men, and so was the entire Rebel Alliance excluding Leia, Mon Mothma, and the operator lady in Echo Base, and that's a shame. Still, that variety was lost in the prequel trilogy and I expect the sequels will be cast to modern Hollywood standards.


----------



## JBryden88

I find in my project(s) I try and find a balance. I write what I'm interested in, and I write what I feel can be a good story. My two projects both take place in the same world, same country even, but are about 250 years apart.

One character is a female that does wear plate and mail. And she dresses practically. Are there times in which I would describe her as scantily clad? Absolutely. She's part of a culture that is based on the whole idea of the ancient Celt that wades in naked with nothing but war paint. So there are scenes in which she wears /no/ armor, and no it doesn't protect her. But that's not for sex appeal, that's because her culture at that point demands it.

The other character in my main project? She doesn't wear heavy armor. She wields a sword and a dagger, sometimes two swords, and she's not built for armor. She's athletic and very quick footed. Her armor style I would say IS "skimpy." Again, not the Red Sonja look.

Using a link from the original link which goes to another link: http://womenfighters.tumblr.com/image/21141900728

The first female image on the left is more akin to what she wears. OR the last image on the right EXCEPT for most of it. And what I mean by that, is that take away the "Mailkini" and instead replace it with leather of the same shape, and reasonable leggings, and that's what she'd wear. It's a balance between being appealing to say, a guy who does want to read about an attractive warrior woman but not straying into absurd turf. 

The chainmail bikini concept only works for one character, and that's Red Sonja, because she's Red Sonja lol.


----------



## Jabrosky

saellys said:


> I see this argument a whole lot on the Internet, without the "not nearly so bad" caveat. It's a false equivalence. In fantasy art and comic books (where this comes up a lot) and the suchlike, men draw male characters they way they want to look. Men draw female characters _the way men want women to look_. All too rarely are women consulted regarding how they want to be portrayed. Women make up a tiny percentage of creative professionals in the gaming/comic book/fantasy art world, for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with lack of effort on their part, so even though we're living in the 21st century and sexism is supposed to be over, the overwhelming majority of people creating things for our consumption are men.


If I may play devil's advocate for a moment...

The double standard you mention would indeed be unfair if comic books and video games were gender-neutral material, but that would indeed be the case in an ideal world, in the real world they aren't. Just as romance novels are written with mostly female readers in mind, so are comics and games predominantly tailored for (straight) male tastes. Therefore, it's not surprising that women get the sexualized treatment in men's media, just as men may receive a similar sexualized treatment in women's media. It's not like there's a lot of cross-gender media consumption after all.

For some reason women seem more concerned with how they are represented in men's media than men are about the reverse.


----------



## saellys

Jabrosky said:


> If I may play devil's advocate for a moment...
> 
> The double standard you mention would indeed be unfair if comic books and video games were gender-neutral material, but that would indeed be the case in an ideal world, in the real world they aren't. Just as romance novels are written with mostly female readers in mind, so are comics and games predominantly tailored for (straight) male tastes. Therefore, it's not surprising that women get the sexualized treatment in men's media, just as men may receive a similar sexualized treatment in women's media. It's not like there's a lot of cross-gender media consumption after all.
> 
> For some reason women seem more concerned with how they are represented in men's media than men are about the reverse.



Ahh, now we're getting to the meat and potatoes. There are a couple problems with that logic. The first is that it's problematic for one gender to be sexualized exclusively in the other gender's targeted media at all--it produces certain expectations. Young, impressionable boys who read comic books full of rubber-spined women with enormous breasts, flying about in spandex thongs (or doing battle in mailkinis), will on some level, conscious or otherwise, expect to see more of that.

The other problem is that men are _not_ sexualized in women's media (which explains why they're not too concerned about it). Next time you go to 7-11, look over the newsstand and try to find one (just one) female-targeted magazine with a man on the cover. I'm not even going to get specific about sexy poses or a state of undress, because I can pretty much guarantee that unless they carry _Playgirl_, or maybe _Bust_'s once-yearly "Men We Love" issue, or this month's _O_ with Dr. Oz sharing the cover with Oprah, you will not see a man on the cover of a woman's magazine. You will see more women, and this is because women are taught to view themselves and each other through the selfsame male gaze. 

The only significant example of a man being presented in a state of undress, for the purpose of ogling, in media directed specifically at women was Taylor Lautner in the _Twilight_ saga, and even that looked almost exactly like the cover of a men's fitness magazine. 

And the fact remains that sexualized images of men are almost never altered to the extent that sexualized images of women are, with the airbrushing and the waistline-warping and the contorting. Check out The Hawkeye Initiative for an idea of how such a thing would look. Would you take that man seriously? (Provided you took Hawkeye seriously to begin with, of course, which I don't, but if you need to visualize a more interesting superhero in his place, the effect will probably be the same.)


----------



## saellys

Oh, and the acceptance that comic books and videogames and the fantasy genre and so on are tailored for straight male tastes, and that this is somehow justification for continuing to exclude and misrepresent women, is also a problem. Lots of women consume this media, and more would join in if they saw themselves represented in it.


----------



## ALB2012

saellys said:


> I see this argument a whole lot on the Internet, without the "not nearly so bad" caveat. It's a false equivalence. In fantasy art and comic books (where this comes up a lot) and the suchlike, men draw male characters they way they want to look. Men draw female characters _the way men want women to look_. All too rarely are women consulted regarding how they want to be portrayed. Women make up a tiny percentage of creative professionals in the gaming/comic book/fantasy art world, for a variety of reasons which have nothing to do with lack of effort on their part, so even though we're living in the 21st century and sexism is supposed to be over, the overwhelming majority of people creating things for our consumption are men.
> 
> 
> 
> _Star Wars_ was pretty utopian as far as body types were concerned, at least in the original trilogy. The fighter pilots in particular were all shapes and sizes (casting English stage actors will do that). That was never used for cheap laughs--at no point did anyone toss Jek Porkins a space sausage so he'd break his chair, and no one had trouble getting into the cockpit. They were still all men, and so was the entire Rebel Alliance excluding Leia, Mon Mothma, and the operator lady in Echo Base, and that's a shame. Still, that variety was lost in the prequel trilogy and I expect the sequels will be cast to modern Hollywood standards.



I am talking about the computer game, but I agree about the movies. I hadn't really thought about the lack of women in the alliance, or indeed the empire, at least in the original films but you are correct.

"(where this comes up a lot) and the suchlike, men draw male characters they way they want to look. Men draw female characters the way men want women to look." This I agree with, I don't think I mean it was not as bad but maybe it simply was not as obvious to me that the men are all so generic.


I disagree though about the comment men are not sexualised. Look at the romance book covers, yes the women are too but all the men are really good looking and have the toned, abs look. I swear there is one buffed male torso with interchangable heads doing the round. Women too have a sexualised view of men. Would you buy a book with picture of a fat, balding middle aged man on it? Probably not. Whats his name from 50 shades of grey is not portrayed as your average fella and most of the men in female oriented romance and erotica are fit, handsome and hung like a horse. 

Maybe it is simply not as obvious?


----------



## The Writer's Realms

ALB2012 said:


> I disagree though about the comment men are not sexualised. Look at the romance book covers, yes the women are too but all the men are really good looking and have the toned, abs look. I swear there is one buffed male torso with interchangable heads doing the round. Women too have a sexualised view of men. Would you buy a book with picture of a fat, balding middle aged man on it? Probably not. Whats his name from 50 shades of grey is not portrayed as your average fella and most of the men in female oriented romance and erotica are fit, handsome and hung like a horse.
> 
> Maybe it is simply not as obvious?



Really good point! I have actually never thought about that before.


----------



## saellys

It's not as obvious because it's not nearly as prevalent. Harlequin romance novels and cheap smut aside (_Fifty Shades_ had no illustrations, by the way), how many times a day do you see a bare-chested man in advertising, book covers, and media in general? How about women in bikinis? Do a count sometime. The exposed, objectified female body (often photographed only from the neck down) is used to sell literally everything, while manly six-packs and pecs sell romance novels and maybe protein shake mix at GNC.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

saellys said:


> It's not as obvious because it's not nearly as prevalent. Harlequin romance novels and cheap smut aside (Fifty Shades had no illustrations, by the way), how many times a day do you see a bare-chested man in advertising, book covers, and media in general? How about women in bikinis? Do a count sometime. The exposed, objectified female body (often photographed only from the neck down) is used to sell literally everything, while manly six-packs and pecs sell romance novels and maybe protein shake mix at GNC.



Is it canted towards women? Yes, most certainly but understandably so.... Women, in general, are far more concerned with their appearance than men. Therefore, those female images have greater numbers of impressions per image, than ads that feature men, because they appeal to both genders. There are still plenty of uses of the male form in this regard other than Harlequin novels. The ratio may be 4 or 5 to 1 but it's still out there a good amount.


----------



## saellys

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Women, in general, are far more concerned with their appearance than men. Therefore, those female images have greater numbers of impressions per image, than ads that feature men, because they appeal to both genders. There are still plenty of uses of the male form in this regard other than Harlequin novels. The ratio may be 4 or 5 to 1 but it's still out there a good amount.



Are you actually trying to tell me that a bikini-clad supermodel reclining on a sports car will attract me because I'm concerned with my appearance?


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

saellys said:


> Are you actually trying to tell me that a bikini-clad supermodel reclining on a sports car will attract me because I'm concerned with my appearance?



Note the use of the phrase "in general". 

It comes down to women in western society being held to, and competing for, an ideal appearance standard (an unrealistic & unfair one) and little to do with sexual attraction.You'd be hard pressed to convince me that the average western woman is not more concerned about appearance than the average man. I stand by that assertion though it will obviously not apply to all individuals.


----------



## The Writer's Realms

Maybe, because the target audience for that sports car are desperate/low self esteem men that think that by buying that car they will get supermodel girlfriends. So a male that is concerned with his appearance might be attracted.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

The Writer's Realms said:


> Maybe, because the target audience for that sports car are desperate/low self esteem men that think that by buying that car they will get supermodel girlfriends. So a male that is concerned with his appearance might be attracted.



Is that man concerned with his appearance or subject to the idea that showing off his money can attract a woman that looks like that?

I'd say the latter.


----------



## The Writer's Realms

Some say that men with fast/big cars are "compensating" for something. Which I would say is an appearance issue.

I do actually know some males that are in severe debt for these so called "chick magnets." So there is definitely no money to show off for them.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

By that, you're suggesting that advertisements like that are directed towards men with small genitalia. I'd submit that they are directed at men with large bank accounts or substantial expendable income.

Again, we're talking generalities and not specifics.


----------



## The Writer's Realms

I would say genitalia would have more to do with the supermodel than income, but more an over all self esteem issue.


----------



## saellys

T.Allen.Smith said:


> Note the use of the phrase "in general".
> 
> It comes down to women in western society being held to, and competing for, an ideal appearance standard (an unrealistic & unfair one) and little to do with sexual attraction.You'd be hard pressed to convince me that the average western woman is not more concerned about appearance than the average man. I stand by that assertion though it will obviously not apply to all individuals.



It's a flawed assertion for many reasons, chiefly that it doesn't address the root of the problem.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

saellys said:


> It's a flawed assertion for many reasons, chiefly that it doesn't address the root of the problem.



How so? Just calling an assertion flawed isn't an argument.

In your opinion, what is the root problem?

EDIT: I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm curious about your perspective.


----------



## saellys

T.Allen.Smith said:


> How so? Just calling an assertion flawed isn't an argument.
> 
> In your opinion, what is the root problem?



Every generalization has its basis in _something_, by necessity, but there is no biological or evolutionary imperative for women to be concerned with their appearance. There's a discussion like this happening in another thread right now; women tend to be considered more valuable based on their uteri, not their faces (and historically, a Rubenesque physique suggested fertility more strongly than today's value of thinness). The obsession with appearance that you noted must come from somewhere. 

The generally accepted term is "male gaze". Makers of media are predominantly male. Male characters in media are more thoroughly represented than female characters on a spectrum that includes race, body time, income level, and education. Female characters tend to fall into a very small selection of categories, all of which look essentially the same. If that's all women are presented with, and we're told at every turn that we should strive for that, how can we possibly avoid being concerned with our appearance? It's a vicious cycle, but it has nothing to do with any inherent quality in womankind.


----------



## T.Allen.Smith

I don't disagree with any of those points. Also, I never claimed women are inherently this way. In fact, only a few posts up I noted that I thought the media ideal held women to an unfair & unrealistic standard.

My only point is that the current use of female sexuality, based off current cultural attitudes as a whole, is good marketing because it has impact on a greater percentage of the population than male images. Whether or not its moral or healthy can certainly be brought into question.

I have a young daughter whom I plan to teach to have value in herself, above an beyond appearance. When it comes to the physical, I want her to love her form and not subject herself to the torment of current thoughts on beauty.


----------



## saellys

Well then, I would go further than your assessment that it all comes down to an unfair standard and say that the standard has roots that can be fixed, and indeed must be fixed in order for our culture to approach anything resembling egalitarianism. The standard has become the status quo, and it leads to all manner of destructive attitudes. 

I'm in the same position--my daughter is a year old, and every day I wonder how soon my voice will be drowned out by the world around her, and when my insistence that uniqueness is beautiful will cease to have any influence in the way she views herself.


----------



## Ankari

saellys said:


> Every generalization has its basis in _something_, by necessity, *but there is no biological or evolutionary imperative for women to be concerned with their appearance.* There's a discussion like this happening in another thread right now; women tend to be considered more valuable based on their uteri, not their faces (and historically, a Rubenesque physique suggested fertility more strongly than today's value of thinness). The obsession with appearance that you noted must come from somewhere.



There is.  At least as debated by a special I watched on Discovery Channel.  Ancient man looked for certain physical markers in a woman to find the healthiest mate for child bearing.  The most predominant way to measure is symmetry.  The closer to perfect symmetry a woman displays, the healthier she is perceived.  The healthier, the more attractive.

This is still seen today.  Super models aren't picked because of the dimensions of physical attributes, they are picked because of they're facial symmetry.

It's not hard to derive why women would want to emulate such women supposedly geared towards men.  Those women speak to our (men) primal need to reproduce.


----------



## saellys

Ankari said:


> Super models aren't picked because of the dimensions of physical attributes, they are picked because of they're facial symmetry.



I wouldn't deny that facial symmetry is a factor in the appeal of models and actresses who end up prominently placed in the media we consume, but downplaying the prevalence of a size zero physique is ridiculous. Furthermore, there's a threshold for what we regular-type women can emulate--if our faces aren't symmetrical and we can't afford plastic surgery, we're out of luck, but anyone can go on a starvation diet and get a Brazilian wax. 

This goes beyond images presented in media, all the way to what women are offered when they go shopping. I am the national average dress size, which means a medium, right? Nope. Unless I go to Walmart, where they have their finger on the pulse of their customers' body types if not the pulse of fashion, the labels tell me I am a large or extra-large. And those sizes are almost always enlarged versions of the smaller patterns, which means the proportions are off and they don't fit properly, because looking good in clothes is only for skinny people. I am presented, every day, with a standard that has nothing to do with an evolutionary or biological imperative, or indeed with reality.


----------



## Kit

And ironically, studies have shown that the people most critical about women's weight are... other women.  

Studies have proven that the majority of men- when asked to rate the attractiveness of a selection of female figures- do *not* select the anorexic one. They select the one with a little meat on her bones.


----------



## ALB2012

I sort of wish I hadn't started this...
Yep I know the feeling of having to buy larger sized clothes as I am a buxom lass  Why shops don't have nice clothes for the slightly larger or rather not the skinny thin sized girl I have no idea.

Look in women's mags- I bet most of those models are thin, the mags advertise make up and clothes which only look good on a stick insect and these are the ones aimed AT women so it is not just men who sexualise women, women do too. 

Oh and there are a LOT of the buffed male torsos as romance covers on the facebook and GR sites I hang around on. I guess both men and women have an unrealistic ideal of what is attractive. 

However we seem to have meandered a bit.


----------



## The Writer's Realms

> There is. At least as debated by a special I watched on Discovery Channel. Ancient man looked for certain physical markers in a woman to find the healthiest mate for child bearing. The most predominant way to measure is symmetry. The closer to perfect symmetry a woman displays, the healthier she is perceived. The healthier, the more attractive.



I think I know which one you are talking about. The title slips my mind, but the evolutionary reasoning behind why certain sexes act the way they do, was very intriguing. I am a huge documentary nerd. : P


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

saellys & T. Allen Smith,

I have three daughters… and I teach at a high school which has the #1 teen pregnancy rate in the state! So I'm all about teaching my kids to value themselves and not be swayed by whatever society's influence/pressure may be. They're beautiful anyway, so I don't think looks are a worry.



Getting on-topic, I'm in the early stages of a work of fiction that stars a female barbarian. This thread is actually a great resource about how to armor women–and how not to. (Note to self: chainmail bikinis put the 'cleave' in 'cleavage.')


----------



## saellys

Kit said:


> And ironically, studies have shown that the people most critical about women's weight are... other women.



Internalized misogyny is a beautiful thing. </sarcasm>



ALB2012 said:


> Look in women's mags- I bet most of those models are thin, the mags advertise make up and clothes which only look good on a stick insect and these are the ones aimed AT women so it is not just men who sexualise women, women do too.



I mentioned that earlier. It's another symptom of a pervasive male gaze, and women are raised to accept that as normal. And it goes beyond sexualization to presenting a homogeneous image of what is acceptable in body type. Women literally don't see any alternatives in the media, any other images to emulate, and media saturation is higher now than it has ever been in history, so these ideals are only going to be come more normalized and pervasive. Hence all the discussion in this thread of how women are more concerned with their appearance and are more critical about each other's weight and sexualize themselves and each other as much as or more than men, and I really can't figure out whether people really think this stuff is natural and a product of women's attitudes, like we actually secretly want to hold ourselves to a ridiculous and unattainable standard. 



ALB2012 said:


> However we seem to have meandered a bit.



Sorry for the rabbit trail, but this is actually all part of the same problem.


----------



## Steerpike

Saellys, sure the answer to every question regarding women's own responsibility for self-image and societal perceptions can't be that they are helpless victims to the conceptions and misconceptions of men.


----------



## Mindfire

Jabrosky said:


> For me the true crux of the issue is the sexual double standard. I don't have a problem with scantily clad characters per se; after all, entire real world cultures have gotten away with wearing little clothing (although most of these tend to come from societies and environments very different from the stereotypical fantasy setting). What's unfair is that only one sex gets the sexy treatment, which betrays a sentiment that only men's sexual desires matter.


Or that male artists don't feel comfortable sexualizing their own gender.


----------



## saellys

Steerpike said:


> Saellys, sure the answer to every question regarding women's own responsibility for self-image and societal perceptions can't be that they are helpless victims to the conceptions and misconceptions of men.



I never said it was. Everyone is responsible for examining the things they accept as true or not true, and living their lives accordingly, regardless of prevailing thought. The fact remains that literally every discussion I have ever witnessed or participated in that involved this topic has devolved to the following exchange, over and over:

Participant 1: The presentation of women in media is deeply problematic.
Participant 2: But women do Generalization A, Generalization B, and Generalization C, all of which correspond to the way they're presented in media!

It's missing the point and it's an excuse for complacency. If women's responsibility for self-image and societal perceptions rests entirely on their own shoulders, no one needs to change anything and the status quo can persist indefinitely--hooray!


----------



## saellys

Mindfire said:


> Or that male artists don't feel comfortable sexualizing their own gender.



Here's a marvelous little comic about that.


----------



## Steerpike

I think it rests on the shoulders of both men and women, as member of society. It begins with the manner on which we raise our children to view such things, both sons and daughters.


----------



## saellys

Steerpike said:


> I think it rests on the shoulders of both men and women, as member of society. It begins with the manner on which we raise our children to view such things, both sons and daughters.



I think it's just as important to work to educate people who have been steeped in this society for decades already. Otherwise our sons and daughters will grow up in an environment very hostile to their views and self-esteem.


----------



## Steerpike

saellys said:


> I think it's just as important to work to educate people who have been steeped in this society for decades already. Otherwise our sons and daughters will grow up in an environment very hostile to their views and self-esteem.



Yes, though in my experience people aren't the receptive to education in this area. We'll have better luck in the long run instilling the right ideals in our kids and then watching things evolve as they grow into adults. Of course, not everyone on the same "side" can even seem to agree what is appropriate. I remember a discussion about women who run pornography (i.e. they're not the subjects of it, but the publishers, photographers, etc.) with some professors and graduate students in Women's Studies, and there was a viewpoint expressed that since the women had taken charge of the situation and turned it to their advantage, since they were in control, it was a good thing (or at least better than the alternative). The opposing view is that it was in fact worse and they were just contributing to a serious problem resulting from male-dominated society.

I do think we can get our children into the right mindset, though not without bumps along the way. My daughter is 17 now, and great about ignoring societal conceptions of what has to be sexy or beautiful. She does her own thing. Go back to around junior high, that wasn't the case. She was much more into how her peers thought she should look than how she thought she should look. In her case, it has helped that her mom is the first person to discount societal expectations, but has always received a lot of attention for her looks (and she doesn't want half of it, as she is a lesbian and not interested). That may sound counter-intuitive, but I think it showed that you can ignore all the media portrayals of how women are supposed to look, ignore what is in the magazines, and adopt a much more natural approach to how you look and others in society will still find that attractive. It seems to have been a good lesson at around 13 years of age or so, when what was in the magazines was starting to look more enticing to my daughter. I believe you have to reinforce the proper perceptions in both boys and girls, particularly when they start hitting around 12 and 13 years of age, and girls start to see themselves in the mirror of magazine covers and boys start to look around at media and think that's how girls are supposed to look and behave.


----------



## Mindfire

saellys said:


> Here's a marvelous little comic about that.



My point is that you can't realistically expect male artists to sexualize male characters. I'd go one step further and say you can't expect male audiences to fully enjoy media in which they are sexualized for the same reason you can't expect women to do the same. For example, I liked Kim Possible, but hated the romance subplots because her crush of the week always made me cringe with his sickening perfection. I can only imagine what it's like for women to sit through Michael Bay movies.

I think the best solution is for women to make their own counterpart media where they can sexualize men all they like, so long as I never have to see it. And in return, men should do women the courtesy of keeping male media similarly discreet. Each sex can sexualize the other without seeing themselves sexualized.

E.g. Comic books could be printed in male and female versions: same script, different art.

Of course this utopia will never come to pass.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> I think the best solution is for women to make their own counterpart media where they can sexualize men all they like, so long as I never have to see it. And in return, men should do women the courtesy of keeping male media similarly discreet. Each sex can sexualize the other without seeing themselves sexualized.



The problem is that the exposure of men to heavily-sexualized media can leave the realm of fantasy and impact their conceptions and expectations of women. So even if women never see the media, you still have a problem if this sort of thing isn't put in its proper perspective (such as via education).


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> The problem is that the exposure of men to heavily-sexualized media can leave the realm of fantasy and impact their conceptions and expectations of women. So even if women never see the media, you still have a problem if this sort of thing isn't put in its proper perspective (such as via education).



Buried there is the implication that women's conceptions and expectations won't be impacted. Do you believe that to be the case?


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Buried there is the implication that women's conceptions and expectations won't be impacted. Do you believe that to be the case?



In your hypothetical they aren't exposed to it. Or do you mean to ask whether they'll be impacted by the lack of exposure?


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> In your hypothetical they aren't exposed to it. Or do you mean to ask whether they'll be impacted by the lack of exposure?



I meant wouldn't they be impacted by their own male-sexualizing media? Remember the crux of my idea is to be EQUAL and opposite.


----------



## saellys

My personal utopia involves everyone getting to enjoy whatever media they want without the risk of being objectified or marginalized, but your mileage may vary, and all that.


----------



## Kit

Legendary Sidekick said:


> (Note to self: chainmail bikinis put the 'cleave' in 'cleavage.')



:bounce::biggrin:


----------



## Mindfire

saellys said:


> My personal utopia involves everyone getting to enjoy whatever media they want without the risk of being objectified or marginalized, but your mileage may vary, and all that.



Full disclosure: I wasn't completely serious. That post was kind of farcical.

Being earnest now. In our current society, any and all interactions between the sexes take the form of a zero sum game in which in order for one to gain the other must lose. (I am talking about perception, not reality.) Search your feelings, you know it to be true.

 Because of this attitude, gender equality is impossible. We can only exchange the tyranny of one sex for the other. Boy vs girl is engrained in our psyche from preschool age. There can be only one. This attitude continues into adolescence and adulthood where each sex will congregate to bemoan the manifold irritating tendencies of the other. This is why men are so hostile to feminism and why all feminists are painted as part of the radical fringe weirdos. Not because of ill will towards women necessarily, but out of a misguided sense of self preservation. Likewise the "patriarchy" theory springs from this same animosity.


----------



## saellys

I love when people say patriarchy is a theory the same way fundamentalist Christians say evolution is a theory. Six percent of United Nations member countries have female heads of government. Men literally control the world. It's not an Illuminati conspiracy theory or a male jackboot on a female face; it's an almost-total absence of women's voices in political decisions that effect every single human being on the planet. 

Gender equality is only impossible if people stop trying, and people will stop trying if they believe it's a lost cause--hence the need for education.


----------



## Mindfire

saellys said:


> I love when people say patriarchy is a theory the same way fundamentalist Christians say evolution is a theory. Six percent of United Nations member countries have female heads of government. Men literally control the world. It's not an Illuminati conspiracy theory or a male jackboot on a female face; it's an almost-total absence of women's voices in political decisions that effect every single human being on the planet.
> 
> Gender equality is only impossible if people stop trying, and people will stop trying if they believe it's a lost cause--hence the need for education.



Are you sure? Feminist blogs seem to love espousing the jackboot sentiment. After a while it strikes me as similar to the way I see other black people blame "the white man" for everything. Yes, racism exists but come on, this is absurd. 

But that's beside the point. I'm rather disappointed that you didn't address the zero sum game thing, because THAT was the heart of my comment and the issue I wished to engender discussion of. From the cradle boys and girls are taught on all sides to hold each other in contempt. And the contempt goes both ways.


----------



## saellys

Sorry Steerpike, I totally missed your earlier post. 



Steerpike said:


> Yes, though in my experience people aren't the receptive to education in this area.



Case in point: this thread! 



Steerpike said:


> We'll have better luck in the long run instilling the right ideals in our kids and then watching things evolve as they grow into adults.



I can't just sit back and hope my parenting skills will make things better in the long run, because I have to deal with this every day myself. It's a real, immediate issue that effects my daily life as well as my daughter's future.



Steerpike said:


> Of course, not everyone on the same "side" can even seem to agree what is appropriate. I remember a discussion about women who run pornography (i.e. they're not the subjects of it, but the publishers, photographers, etc.) with some professors and graduate students in Women's Studies, and there was a viewpoint expressed that since the women had taken charge of the situation and turned it to their advantage, since they were in control, it was a good thing (or at least better than the alternative). The opposing view is that it was in fact worse and they were just contributing to a serious problem resulting from male-dominated society.



Porn as an entity is not necessarily just a product of male-dominated society. Lots of people like watching sexytimes. Generalization: media created and produced by women will tend to be more female-positive, which means porn that is not exploitative and more representative of varying body types, and portrays the idea that--gasp--women can enjoy sex too. 



Steerpike said:


> I do think we can get our children into the right mindset, though not without bumps along the way. My daughter is 17 now, and great about ignoring societal conceptions of what has to be sexy or beautiful. She does her own thing. Go back to around junior high, that wasn't the case. She was much more into how her peers thought she should look than how she thought she should look. In her case, it has helped that her mom is the first person to discount societal expectations, but has always received a lot of attention for her looks (and she doesn't want half of it, as she is a lesbian and not interested). That may sound counter-intuitive, but I think it showed that you can ignore all the media portrayals of how women are supposed to look, ignore what is in the magazines, and adopt a much more natural approach to how you look and others in society will still find that attractive. It seems to have been a good lesson at around 13 years of age or so, when what was in the magazines was starting to look more enticing to my daughter. I believe you have to reinforce the proper perceptions in both boys and girls, particularly when they start hitting around 12 and 13 years of age, and girls start to see themselves in the mirror of magazine covers and boys start to look around at media and think that's how girls are supposed to look and behave.



Agreed on all counts, and props to your daughter for doing her own thing. My yearly renewal of faith in humanity comes in the form of Southern Girls Rock 'n' Roll Camp, where just under a hundred adolescent girls learn to play instruments and form bands and collaborate all week long. They are all the most amazing, self-confident, individualistic girls I've ever met. Each and every one of them has a hundred stories about horrible things they've had to put up with in school or among friends. For some, the struggle makes you stronger. Plenty of other people never come out the other side, though.


----------



## Mindfire

So we're going to ignore the zero sum game and mutual contempt thing? Yes? Ok.


----------



## Mindfire

Now porn is a little different because I think it's inherently exploitative. Porn that appeals to men will disgust women and porn that appeals to women will disturb men. It'd be better to get rid of porn altogether than reform it.


----------



## Amanita

Oh well, interesting to  see how far a discussion about female armour can go. I actually don't think that the exact way the armour is looking even matters in written fantasy. Films and video games are a different matter. The fact that she's wearing armour and is protected by it should be enough for the plot. For me, the ways the societies where armour was typically worn to battle would have to change if female fighters where commonplace would be much more interesting.

But on the general issues mentioned here.
I'm not really affected by the sexualisation of women because I'm not consuming most media where this is a problem. Therefore I can't really say much about it. I'm against the idea that women showing skin is generally a bad thing but I can see the problem with the way it is done. 
In real life, I haven't really experienced much contempt against people of the opposite gender, with the excpetion of a small number of individuals. It's really bad on the internet and in media however. I don't think people of opposite genders hating each other really is such a big problem. Most of us are still trying to find a suitable person of the opposite gender to spend our lives with after all. 
I've seen plenty of male internet commentators who seem to be completely unable to accept women as equal human beings however. For them, accepting this already seems to be proof of "female rule" and many other things. Most of them don't seem to be too keen on claiming that in real life conversation or maybe I've just been lucky enough not to meet then though far.
I have to admit that it's hard for me to look back at the way women have been treated through history and not feel extremely angry. I don't blame men living today for this  though, at least not as long as they aren't trying to justify it. To this I'm being quite allergic however.
There are still too many countries where the sytematical abuse of women is still a "normal" feature of everyday life and many women still face honor killings, genital mutilation or are punished for being raped. While all of this is still happening, I find it hard to consider some radical feminists saying stupid things equally bad. As far as I know it has stayed talk so far and hasn't been done in real life, at least not in many cases. If it is, the people responsible deserve  to be punished accordingly of course, but I can't see this a major problem at the moment.


----------



## saellys

Mindfire said:


> So we're going to ignore the zero sum game and mutual contempt thing? Yes? Ok.



Yup, I don't feel compelled to entertain the hypothesis that men and women are trained to hate each other, or the hypothesis that men and women cannot possibly find the same things arousing. Neither are true in my experience.


----------



## Steerpike

I think it is endemic in the gaming industry for some reason. See blogs like Gaming as Women, or look at reports by women attending gaming conventions or even things like ComicCon.


----------



## Steerpike

saellys said:


> Yup, I don't feel compelled to entertain the hypothesis that men and women are trained to hate each other, or the hypothesis that men and women cannot possibly find the same things arousing. Neither are true in my experience.



I also don't think we're biologically predetermined to try to dominate the opposite sex, or that any societal structure will necessarily have to have a large disparity in one direction or the other. I'm happy to talk about it academically, but if those are the starting propositions, I do not agree.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> I also don't think we're biologically predetermined to try to dominate the opposite sex, or that any societal structure will necessarily have to have a large disparity in one direction or the other. I'm happy to talk about it academically, but if those are the starting propositions, I do not agree.



I never meant to imply that this was actually the case, merely that it's how people _think_. To the average guy on the street, the purpose of feminism is not to simply rectify gender inequities but to simply reverse them. The fact that it's called "feminism" rather than "egalitarianism" or something similar lends credence to this idea in their minds. This is where terms like "feminazi" come from. The anti-feminist backlash comes not from hatred of women per ce, but from a sense of self-preservation and a "Them vs. Us" mentality. My point was that this mentality might have some basis in the "boy vs. girl" trend fostered in childhood, where the sexes are taught to compete with one another.


----------



## Steerpike

Feminism isn't a broad, unified movement that can be characterized in such a way as to say "feminism" does X, Y, or Z. You should see some of the arguments within feminism itself. They get pretty ugly at times. Liberal feminists, for example, tend to accept the patriarchal value system as the correct one (this is in my experience; I'm not an academic in this area). They determine the value of women by how well women move into traditionally-male roles. These feminists are more likely that some others to discount the value of a stay-at-home mother, for example, because just like the patriarchy, liberal feminists undervalue traditionally-female roles. On the other hand, radical feminists reject the idea that the patriarchal system is the right value system and feel you need to restructure the whole thing from the top down, so that roles are valued differently. There are a number of other viewpoints as well.

I think the "backlash" against such things (to the extent there is one) comes a lot from media sensationalization and misrepresentations. This is true for any movement. What you hear from ideologues on the other side, particularly in the popular meda (take Limbaugh, for example, who coined the 'feminazi' term you brought up) isn't any more likely to be credible as a whole than what you hear from the left about the tea party movement, or from the right about the ACLU or about organizations that support gay rights.


----------



## mbartelsm

Mindfire said:


> I never meant to imply that this was actually the case, merely that it's how people _think_. To the average guy on the street, the purpose of feminism is not to simply rectify gender inequities but to simply reverse them. The fact that it's called "feminism" rather than "egalitarianism" or something similar lends credence to this idea in their minds. This is where terms like "feminazi" come from. The anti-feminist backlash comes not from hatred of women per ce, but from a sense of self-preservation and a "Them vs. Us" mentality. My point was that this mentality might have some basis in the "boy vs. girl" trend fostered in childhood, where the sexes are taught to compete with one another.


I agree with you in this, but as Steerpike mentioned, you cannot generalize the whole feminist movement. The problem is that feminazis are the ones that get media exposure because of their more radical approach, this then affects how males perceive the whole movement and ignites a situation like the one you describe. A good example of this are the double standards of many feminist movements, where the movements seek for benefits that men have but ignore or reject the idea of women having to put up to the bad thing (i.e. military service).
Don't get me wrong, I'm all in for gender equality, but if women or men come to me showing off these double standards then we have a problem.


----------



## Reaver

The problem with humanity is that we're little more than talking apes with extraordinary brains.  However, no matter how extraordinary our brains are, they drive our biological impulses. And those, my friends, override everything: decency, mutual respect, common sense, logic, sometimes even our most basic survival instincts.


----------



## saellys

mbartelsm said:


> A good example of this are the double standards of many feminist movements, where the movements seek for benefits that men have but ignore or reject the idea of women having to put up to the bad thing (i.e. military service).



I'm really interested in seeing a real-world example of this. I have yet to encounter a feminist who wants something specific that men have, but isn't willing to do something specific that men do to get it.



			
				Reaver said:
			
		

> However, no matter how extraordinary our brains are, it drives our biological impulses.



What drives our biological impulses?


----------



## Reaver

saellys said:


> What drives our biological impulses?



Our brain.


*EDIT* Time to get this thread back on topic or has it run its course?


----------



## FatCat

Female armor in fantasy is revealing and unpractical!? Oh my, what a revelation! When has anything in fantasy been practical, isn't that the point!? A good-looking female body is better looking in an outfit that highlights sexual features, the same with men. This thread is a bit confusing to be honest, the correlation between real-world gender issues and fantasy literature is a bit strange, in my opinion. Why not let the sparsely-clad heroin be an object of desire, or the muscled barbarian (with rugged good looks of course) be just that, fantasy. I find it odd that anyone would really consider these images offensive, when it is pure fantasy that compels such a thing in the first place.


----------



## Meteora

FatCat said:


> Female armor in fantasy is revealing and unpractical!? Oh my, what a revelation! When has anything in fantasy been practical, isn't that the point!? A good-looking female body is better looking in an outfit that highlights sexual features, the same with men. This thread is a bit confusing to be honest, the correlation between real-world gender issues and fantasy literature is a bit strange, in my opinion. Why not let the sparsely-clad heroin be an object of desire, or the muscled barbarian (with rugged good looks of course) be just that, fantasy. I find it odd that anyone would really consider these images offensive, when it is pure fantasy that compels such a thing in the first place.



You have a valid point on how practicality doesn't matter in a fantasy setting, I'll have to give you points for that. While I can't make the same statement for everyone else, I'll have to say that the current trend (aka probably since the beginning) is that the armour/costume is highly oversexualized for the sake of sexualizing female. It doesn't actually offend the vast majority of audience, there are a vocal few who question this.

Its the same deal with video game developers deciding to sexualize most of their leads and some journalists and video gamers giving them flak for it. Most of the people don't care, usually the casual and people who don't like seeing their medium devolve itself to mass catering of young immature men.

I honestly don't care enough to make a huge fuss about it, its all over the media and its not going to change anytime soon (i.e. pretty much never). For all I know I'll probably follow the same trend when I'm doing some art.


----------



## mbartelsm

saellys said:


> I'm really interested in seeing a real-world example of this. I have yet to encounter a feminist who wants something specific that men have, but isn't willing to do something specific that men do to get it.
> 
> What drives our biological impulses?



I wouldn't say it if I hadn't seen it myself, though this is probably more prominent in latin america or other third world countries

@*FatCat: *I don't think the real issue with mailkinis is that they offend women, even though the thread has deviated to that point, the real issue is that "impractical" doesn't begin to cover it, why call it armor if it really doesn't protect you, like someone said, mailkini puts the "cleave" in "cleavage". However, if you take the time to explain that the protection doesn't depends on the actual armor but on some kind of spell it has or an amulet, well, then it isn't much of an issue.


----------



## saellys

FatCat said:


> This thread is a bit confusing to be honest, the correlation between real-world gender issues and fantasy literature is a bit strange, in my opinion. Why not let the sparsely-clad heroin be an object of desire, or the muscled barbarian (with rugged good looks of course) be just that, fantasy. I find it odd that anyone would really consider these images offensive, when it is pure fantasy that compels such a thing in the first place.



Fantasy as a genre is, like all other forms of media we consume, a reflection of attitudes real people have in the real world. Oversexualizing the female body in any context is a symptom of problematic attitudes toward women in general. When it happens in the fantasy genre, it's usually at the expense of character development, and poor character developments makes for a poor reader experience that isn't balanced out by a nice pair of boobies in a mailkini. 

I consider the images problematic mainly because it perpetuates the idea that I am not welcome as either a reader or creator because fantasy/comic books/video games/etc. is for men only, and that my entire gender exists in these stories only to be sexualized and ogled. 



Meteora said:


> I honestly don't care enough to make a huge fuss about it, its all over the media and its not going to change anytime soon (i.e. pretty much never). For all I know I'll probably follow the same trend when I'm doing some art.



If you know it's all over the media to the point of clichÃ©, and you have the option to do something more original and practical in your own art, why follow the same trend? I'm not being sarcastic here; I honestly want to know. I try as best I can to raise awareness of stuff like this in the hopes that people will go in a different direction when given the chance, so I'm very interested to know why someone who is aware of it and admits that it's a problem would still go in the same direction.


----------



## Steerpike

The primary reason people might pursue it, even being aware of it and considering it cliche, is that it is proven to sell.


----------



## FatCat

@Saellys: I think you and I are reading different novels, because I honestly can't remember the last time I read about a mailkini-clad warrior dashing into battle. However, if you're talking about video games and films, I believe men get the same treatment.


----------



## saellys

FatCat said:


> @Saellys: I think you and I are reading different novels, because I honestly can't remember the last time I read about a mailkini-clad warrior dashing into battle.



Conceded, but to be fair a couple Scribes have admitted in this very thread that they write scantily-clad female characters. It's out there.



FatCat said:


> However, if you're talking about video games and films, I believe men get the same treatment.



They really don't. 

I'm not going to rehash the details of what I've already said in this thread, but you should scroll up and check out the comic I linked, and read up on the prevalence of the male gaze. I know of only three instances in which that's been subverted in media that is traditionally presented to a male audience, and they're all very recent. The first was the _Battlestar Galactica_ episode "Final Cut," where the colonial fleet's official documentarians went out of their way to film a half-naked Lee Adama and D'Anna Biers waggled her brows suggestively. The second was _Thor_, where Darcy and Jane ogled and commented on Thor's physique in one scene. 

And the third was _Game of Thrones_, which usually errs spectacularly on the side of sexualized female nudity and totally ignores the fact that its female audience might enjoy seeing naked men (who aren't Theon, Hodor, or a random wine merchant/assassin) now and then. Last season, the camera stood in for Arya Stark's POV and panned slowly up Gendry's body, which actually made me feel a little squicky because the character is underage, and was presented as more of an eleven-year-old-girl-suddenly-realizes-boys-aren't-all-gross moment.

I welcome anything at all you can cite that presents the male body in a way that rivals, say, Megan Fox's contorted motorcycle repair poses in _Transformers 2_ or (for the purpose of being fantasy-specific) anything Boris Vallejo has ever done. I'm going to bet that anything you find was intended as parody.


----------



## Ankari

mbartelsm said:


> @*FatCat: *I don't think the real issue with mailkinis is that they offend women, even though the thread has deviated to that point, the real issue is that "impractical" doesn't begin to cover it, why call it armor if it really doesn't protect you, like someone said, mailkini puts the "cleave" in "cleavage". *However, if you take the time to explain that the protection doesn't depends on the actual armor but on some kind of spell it has or an amulet, well, then it isn't much of an issue.*



I have to disagree on this point.  If a woman is dressed in a mailkini but the protection comes from some magical ring, why is she wearing a mailkini?  Why not something lighter and more practical like a linen shirt and pants?  The mailkini, even though it isn't a complete armor set, weighs a lot more than a shirt and pants.  For ease of movement, a warrior would go for the lighter option (with protection being equal as provided by the ring).

In my novel, I apply practical armor to all genders.  This is not to say that some of my characters won't use their sexuality as a weapon itself, but not every woman is there for eye candy.


----------



## Steerpike

I don't think there is any way to argue that men get the same treatment on the same level. The truth is, media is grossly skewed in favor of sexualized depictions of women. I don't think the point is arguable, personally.

There may be reasons for this, in the minds of the creators of media, in terms of what is effective. I remember learning in a college class on sexuality that men are much more visually stimulated than women. While I can't say whether it is true, scientifically, it certainly seems to be true and it isn't the only time I've heard or read it. That doesn't mean some women aren't also highly visually stimulated, it just speaks to a general situation. If that's the case, then the easiest explanation for sexualization of women is that it works, whereas if you expend the same time and resources sexualizing men, then return is much smaller. 

How many guys did I know in college who sat through Species a few times just to see Natasha Henstridge walking around stark naked? (This was before the internet, where it is all just a click away). If Species had been about a male alien regularly naked on-camera, would you have had as many women sitting through the film to see it? I doubt it.


----------



## Steerpike

Ankari said:


> I have to disagree on this point.  If a woman is dressed in a mailkini but the protection comes from some magical ring, why is she wearing a mailkini?  Why not something lighter and more practical like a linen shirt and pants?  The mailkini, even though it isn't a complete armor set, weighs a lot more than a shirt and pants.  For ease of movement, a warrior would go for the lighter option (with protection being equal as provided by the ring).



Just place the magical protection within the mailkini itself. Then she HAS to wear it. Self-serving, sure...


----------



## saellys

mbartelsm said:


> I wouldn't say it if I hadn't seen it myself, though this is probably more prominent in latin america or other third world countries



I'm still curious about the specifics. 



Steerpike said:


> Just place the magical protection within the mailkini itself. Then she HAS to wear it. Self-serving, sure...



Then she can put something on over it. Call it a mithrilkini.  Actually, on a serious note, the blog post linked at the very beginning of this thread pointed out that concealment can be way sexier than just putting it all out there. I have read and seen on television on numerous occasions that men, er, "perk up" just from knowing that a woman has a garter belt beneath her clothing. How much more potentially arousing would it be to think that under some leathers and linens, a woman has a magical mailkini on? (Which, by the way, is probably pinching her in some really awkward places, but that's a whole different discussion of practicality and comfort.)


----------



## Jabrosky

saellys said:


> Fantasy as a genre is, like all other forms of media we consume, a reflection of attitudes real people have in the real world. Oversexualizing the female body in any context is a symptom of problematic attitudes toward women in general. When it happens in the fantasy genre, it's usually at the expense of character development, and poor character developments makes for a poor reader experience that isn't balanced out by a nice pair of boobies in a mailkini.


I am curious, are you opposed to heterosexual men drawing sexy images of women _per se_? I've received a good deal of flak from some other "feminist" types for my drawings of beautiful female subjects (often coupling the charges of sexism _and_ racism). It's one thing to argue against a common double standard in the sexualization of men and women, but I have received this perception that certain "feminists" (note my quote marks) oppose any man drawing what he finds sexually attractive on principle.

I don't agree that sexy, scantily clad female characters necessarily come with bad characterization. Sure, a lot of male writers may not write their female characters competently, but in the end the bikinis are a cosmetic choice that don't always bear on a character's behavior or personality.


----------



## Reaver

This thread has gotten way off topic and become a sociology debate. I'm locking the thread.


----------

