# Follow-up discussion to "Female armour in fantasy books/games"



## saellys

This thread got way off-topic and Reaver closed it down accordingly, but the discussion was really interesting (and far more civil than most I've encountered on the Internet). So here's a thread to discuss the broader topic of representation of women in media, with an emphasis on the fantasy genre since that is, after all, why we're here. Reaver gave me the go-ahead for a new thread, with the caveat that the mods will be watching closely, so let's maintain the level of respectful intellectual discourse we had in the previous thread, shall we? 

For newcomers to the discussion, here's a list of salient points and research links so you don't have to wade through eleven pages. 

The thread began with a link to this blog post by an armorer, discussing the practicality of armor that covers "lady bits". Contributors pointed out that lots of women would have to wrap or otherwise compress their breasts to fit beneath flat armor, or even to fight at all with full range of motion. 

Women Fighters In Reasonable Armor and OtherWorld Miniatures' female concept art got cited as positive examples of characters who present as female and wear appropriate protection for the types of combat they do. Real-life, modern day professional jousters Virginia Hankins and Jessica Post, both of whom wear full plate, were also referenced, along with the titular characters' armor in the recent reimagined films _Alice In Wonderland_ and _Snow White and the Huntsman_.

Anders Amting made this post comparing female armor in Skyrim with a user-created mod. Thus began the discussion of fantasy's "target audience" wanting particular things from female characters in their media. Some contributors pointed out that since it's fantasy, it really didn't matter and the creators could justify doing whatever they wanted with character design. Others responded that that was all well and good, but the overwhelming majority of female characters in a fantasy setting that was illustrated in some way were depicted wearing impractical or nonexistent armor. 

We talked a lot about the male gaze and the double standard of sexualizing female characters, but not male. (If you were about to post that men are sexualized too, they're not.) The target audience of the fantasy genre and media like comic books and video games was generally agreed to be male, but I posited that wouldn't be the case if more women saw themselves represented realistically in these media. 

Here's a brief summing up of why this is important in two posts from late in the thread: 



			
				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.





			
				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 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.



Now, let the discussion continue!


----------



## Xaysai

I didn't read the other thread, so pardon me if this is irrelevant or has been covered.

I feel that it's all about escapism.

Male characters are portrayed as powerful (Gandolf, Elminster, Zedd, etc) or handsome (Jaime Lannister), or the equivalent of our testosterone laden alter-ego (Logen Ninefingers, Black Dow, etc).

Couldn't you argue that the same has been done for women?


----------



## saellys

Xaysai said:


> I didn't read the other thread, so pardon me if this is irrelevant or has been covered.
> 
> I feel that it's all about escapism.
> 
> Male characters are portrayed as powerful (Gandolf, Elminster, Zedd, etc) or handsome (Jaime Lannister), or the equivalent of our testosterone laden alter-ego (Logen Ninefingers, Black Dow, etc).
> 
> Couldn't you argue that the same has been done for women?



This hasn't been covered, actually. In my experience, it is extremely rare to find a female character portrayed with the same range of possibilities male characters enjoy. I can't name a female character as powerful as Gandalf, as attractive as Jaime Lannister with an equal level of proficiency and experience (part of his arc was that he became somewhat of a Barristan Selmy replacement upon his return to the Kingsguard), or as much of a bloodthirsty berzerker as Logen.


----------



## Steerpike

I nominate The Lady, from the Black Company. She'd kick Gandalf's butt in a fight with magic, is tremendously beautiful, and a lot of blood is shed at her command 

I think the problem becomes more apparent when you look solely at visual media. I agree that the disparity is there, and I think it is ingrained strongly in the culture about comics/graphic novels and gaming. You can find some interesting reports from women at cons, for example. On the one hand, you might argue the nature of the media attracts an audience that is more likely to be hostile to women; on the other hand you can argue that the media itself has some degree of causal effect. In either case, I think it is safe to say the issue isn't an imaginary one.


----------



## Xaysai

saellys said:


> This hasn't been covered, actually. In my experience, it is extremely rare to find a female character portrayed with the same range of possibilities male characters enjoy. I can't name a female character as powerful as Gandalf, as attractive as Jaime Lannister with an equal level of proficiency and experience (part of his arc was that he became somewhat of a Barristan Selmy replacement upon his return to the Kingsguard), or as much of a bloodthirsty berzerker as Logen.



There are examples. However, I will grant you, probably not as prominent (which is where the argument may lie).

Monza Murcatto in Best Served Cold. Brienne from Song of Ice and Fire. Daenerys Targaryen. Anita Blake. Kahlan Amnell in SoT.

I think you find more in Paranormal Romance.

Do you think this is because historically women are "more likely" to read PR and men are "more likely" to read Fantasy?


----------



## Butterfly

I found a list

Top 25 Fantasy Books for Women


----------



## Steerpike

Butterfly said:


> I found a list
> 
> Top 25 Fantasy Books for Women



I've only read 8 of them. I saw they mentioned Kristin Cashore's _Graceling_, which is an excellent book. If I might suggest it, her second novel _Fire_ is even better and also has a good female protag.


----------



## Butterfly

I shall put it on my 'to read list.'


----------



## Steerpike

Butterfly said:


> I shall put it on my 'to read list.'



It's considered YA or teen, just so you know (in case that doesn't interest you). I thought the book was great, though.


----------



## saellys

Xaysai said:


> There are examples. However, I will grant you, probably not as prominent (which is where the argument may lie).
> 
> Monza Murcatto in Best Served Cold. Brienne from Song of Ice and Fire. Daenerys Targaryen. Anita Blake. Kahlan Amnell in SoT.
> 
> I think you find more in Paranormal Romance.
> 
> Do you think this is because historically women are "more likely" to read PR and men are "more likely" to read Fantasy?



I haven't read the non-Martin examples so I can't speak to that, but I'll add them to my reading list. Brienne is described many times over as phenomenally ugly, though she is roughly Jaime's match for skill, if not experience. Daenerys will, I think, end up being among the most powerful _and_ well-rounded female characters in fantasy. Where ASOIAF stands now, she has yet to come into her own. 



Butterfly said:


> I found a list
> 
> Top 25 Fantasy Books for Women



I'm going to make a point to read as many of these as I can find. I am, however, mildly disappointed to find _The Lions of Al-Rassan_ in the top five. Something was bugging me through the first two acts, and I finally realized that Jehane was a plot point. She never actually accomplished anything, or set anything in motion, and I was left with the suspicion that Kay created her (consciously or otherwise) just to humanize his beloved Ammar.


----------



## saellys

Steerpike said:


> It's considered YA or teen, just so you know (in case that doesn't interest you). I thought the book was great, though.



I forgot to bring this up in the old thread, but I think YA is the most innovative field of literature going right now, particularly where female protagonists are concerned.


----------



## Xaysai

saellys said:


> I haven't read the non-Martin examples so I can't speak to that, but I'll add them to my reading list. Brienne is described many times over as phenomenally ugly, though she is roughly Jaime's match for skill, if not experience. Daenerys will, I think, end up being among the most powerful _and_ well-rounded female characters in fantasy. Where ASOIAF stands now, she has yet to come into her own.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to make a point to read as many of these as I can find. I am, however, mildly disappointed to find _The Lions of As-Rassan_ in the top five. Something was bugging me through the first two acts, and I finally realized that Jehane was a plot point. She never actually accomplished anything, or set anything in motion, and I was left with the suspicion that Kay created her (consciously or otherwise) just to humanize his beloved Ammar.



I was using Brienne as a counter to Logen or Black Dow, which if you haven't read any Joe Abercrombie, are characters that aren't going to win any beauty contests, but will kick your ass. And the ass of the guy next to you.

I completely forgot about the Aunt in the Codex Alera. She's an asskicker, but I don't think she was the beautiful type.


----------



## Butterfly

I'd recommend the Deverry cycle. Although there are loads of them.


----------



## saellys

I keep missing posts!



Steerpike said:


> I nominate The Lady, from the Black Company. She'd kick Gandalf's butt in a fight with magic, is tremendously beautiful, and a lot of blood is shed at her command



Sounds like a hoss! I'll check the series out.



Steerpike said:


> I think the problem becomes more apparent when you look solely at visual media. I agree that the disparity is there, and I think it is ingrained strongly in the culture about comics/graphic novels and gaming. You can find some interesting reports from women at cons, for example. On the one hand, you might argue the nature of the media attracts an audience that is more likely to be hostile to women; on the other hand you can argue that the media itself has some degree of causal effect. In either case, I think it is safe to say the issue isn't an imaginary one.



I think both possibilities are a factor, and they build on each other and add up to some of the truly reprehensible stuff that has happened at cons, or the reaction Anita Sarkeesian received when she started a Kickstarter to fund a series of videos about how women are portrayed in videogames.


----------



## saellys

Xaysai said:


> I was using Brienne as a counter to Logen or Black Dow, which if you haven't read any Joe Abercrombie, are characters that aren't going to win any beauty contests, but will kick your ass. And the ass of the guy next to you.



Duly noted!


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> I nominate The Lady, from the Black Company. She'd kick Gandalf's butt in a fight with magic, is tremendously beautiful, and a lot of blood is shed at her command



But Gandalf is like... a god.


----------



## Mindfire

Xaysai said:


> I completely forgot about the Aunt in the Codex Alera. She's an asskicker, but I don't think she was the beautiful type.





Spoiler: Codex Alera



Princeps Septimus seemed to think so.


----------



## Xaysai

Mindfire said:


> But Gandalf is like... a god.



I think The Lady is actually a demigod.


----------



## Steerpike

Xaysai said:


> I think The Lady is actually a demigod.



Yeah.

Mindfire, if you've never read the Black Company what I can tell you is that the power level of magic in those books is orders of magnitude higher than what is in LotR. The Lady wouldn't even break a sweat taking Gandalf down


----------



## Ireth

One thing to note about the Wizards/Istari in LOTR, i.e. Gandalf and Saruman, was that they actually put some pretty heavy limits on their own power when they entered Middle-earth. Take away those limitations, and you have some very powerful demigods/angels.


----------



## Devor

saellys said:


> (If you were about to post that men are sexualized too, they're not.)



Women read just as much fantasy as men, and do, I think, just as much or more sexualization of the opposite gender.

They just call it "Romance" instead of "Fantasy."

. . . . I'm going to get in trouble for that one.


----------



## Steerpike

Here's an interesting blog post relating to this issue, particularly in response to comments made by WotC (the publishers of D&D).

What WOTC Says to its Female Audience (and What We Hear) | Gaming As Women


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Yeah.
> 
> Mindfire, if you've never read the Black Company what I can tell you is that the power level of magic in those books is orders of magnitude higher than what is in LotR. The Lady wouldn't even break a sweat taking Gandalf down



But he can't die. The battle would never really end.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> But he can't die. The battle would never really end.



That's not true. Tolkien said he can be killed (see Tolkien's Letters #156). But we should get back to the topic at hand I suppose. I didn't mean to derail saellys.


----------



## saellys

Steerpike said:


> Here's an interesting blog post relating to this issue, particularly in response to comments made by WotC (the publishers of D&D).
> 
> What WOTC Says to its Female Audience (and What We Hear) | Gaming As Women



Thanks for the link! This is a tune I know well, and it goes, "Hey ladies, I just acknowledged that sexism in things you love exists! But I refuse to actually help the situation at all." 

And now to read the rest of the GAW archive!


----------



## Reaver

Steerpike said:


> That's not true. Tolkien said he can be killed (see Tolkien's Letters #156).




Indeed. He "died" in his fight with the Balrog and was "reborn" as Gandalf the White.  It seems that J.R.R. and his pal C.S. were really into Messianic symbolism in their books. But just as Steerpike said, back to the topic at hand. And one caveat to all who post in this thread: Please do your utmost to keep things civil and respectful.


----------



## Mindfire

Re-post from my PMs with saellys:

As I expressed earlier, pragmatically, you can't expect male writers and artists to sexualize their own gender. I am a male writer and I once was (a very poor) male artist. And while I never stooped to the "mail-kini" level, I generally drew female characters to be attractive to my tastes, ranging from "cute" to "slightly exaggerated"*. My male characters, however, were not designed toward attractiveness, but towards ideals of cleverness and athleticism that I wanted for myself. Sexuality just didn't factor in. And if someone had asked me to draw a male character that was "attractive", my 14-year-old mind would have returned "does not compute".

My point is this: by suggesting that male artists and writers make male characters for the female eye to feast upon (I feel self-conscious just from writing that line), you are asking them to dive headfirst into the same ick-zone that encompasses the female media experience. (Thanks for that comic. It illustrates the point well.) Except you're asking them to do it willingly. And there's not enough empathy in the world to make them do that. The only way the scales will be "re-balanced" is if female writers and artists do it. As it stands the only alternative is to convince the media at large to stop sexualizing everyone and anyone altogether in the name of fairness (and good luck with that).

*I did make a point however to draw them with enough muscle to swing their swords and warhammers and whatnot. Though any brownie points for that are probably negated by the way I drew everything else.


----------



## JCFarnham

I always find myself wondering about double standards in fantasy media. 

I do think you have to remember who created the artefact in question and who it's for, though. That just cannot be extracted from the argument. It fair to say that fantasy is escapist in most cases, correct? Seems to me that what's really happening is that, yes, the creator of something is writing his or her own "fantasy". A man might write, or draw a hulk-type because that's what he'd quite like to be. Why he'd do that is another question entirely, but you do have to consider a certain amount of charicature goes into any fantasy. Hence, men end up muscled when really the ideal is "physically healthy", and the women end up as an over blown representation of what we grow up seeing in real life media. 

It goes both ways though. I posit that you don't see the same _kind_ of oversexualisation in media by women (because it is, to me, all just different varieties of the same root problem) because they want different things. Is it a generalisation to say men idealise physical attributes and women ideals more abstract attributes? Perhaps. But I bet you can find all kinds of over emotional, over-kind, over-gentle, over-loving men in fiction by women with romantic elements. It's no where near as well publicised but thats the same sort of thing, e.g.,

The woman wearing unrealistic armour is more or less like that for the same _reason_ as a Mr Grey/Darcy clone... they're both overblown charicatures of an ideal. 

That in isolation isn't a problem. The issue comes when young people are brought up with no one grounding them in what is realistic. And so, some young men think it's okay to act like a women in cosplay wants to "be paid for services", but only because that's actually how they've been socialised to view the world. 

I don't mean to be controversial as such, but I don't think we need to get rid of all unrealistic sexualised elements in visual fantasy. What we _do_ need is much more of the alternative. I think if young people can see both sides of the coin they'll be able to make a far more informed choice about their futures. 

Let's be honest, I don't actually know a man who _truly_idolizes a fantasy character and even in a real life situation, I think when pressed most men (me included I suppose) would give you a more informed opinion. "I know, it's not realistic to assume X, and really, I don't really want huge racks and bleach blonde hair, or bikini's 24/7, I want Y." In all studies a certain amount of bias creeps in. Researchers assume most gamers or readers of genre fiction are male and that's what they find. The idea that _someone is to blame_ is the core issue here, blame more than anything suggests an us and them divide which further propagates the sub-conscious idea that people can't be equal. 

I'd personally want to avoid the situation where the people standing up for a cause make the problem worse by shining a light on it (creating the loaded question and ultimate divider _"why are you doing that wrong?"_), and instead attack the roots. (as an example of what I mean here look into criticism of the whole S*utWalk thing, and why they do what they do, and what some people think is fundementally wrong with that.)


----------



## Amanita

Reading some of the comments here, I’m probably someone who can’t comment on this at all, because I have such a weird way of looking at it.
I’m female but still like the sight of beautiful women. I never start to worry about my own ugliness when compared to them or something along those lines and I don’t try all kind of things to look like a model. So take my words with a grain of salt. 
I don’t really consider most of them beautiful anyway though. When dealing with works created by others, I feel much less offended by a scarcely clad female character who actively does something to advance the plot than by a princess characters who’s abducted, raped and later rescued by the hero, no matter how “modestly” she might be dressed. 
It’s interesting to see how far the obsession with women’s clothes goes. Either it’s offensive because it’s covering too much or too little, hard to tell where the “acceptable” point is. 
There also seems to be a deeply rooted belief that there’s something inherently bad about male sexual interest in women. Many people seem to believe that sexual interest and respect for a woman can’t exist side by side. (And still expect it to within relationships.) 
Many mythological female characters in traditionally male roles are virgins and either lose their power when they’re aren’t anymore such as BrÃ¼nhilde in the Nibelungenlied or cruelly punish any man who might come close to causing them to lose it such as the Greek goddess Arthemis. 
I can only guess why this is the case and I don’t want to exclude myself from those feeling that way sometimes. 

But back to the subject of female representation: I  agree with those stating that books with good female characters are more prevalent among stories geared at young adults. I’ve read quite a few of those where the authors dared to have really able female heroines. Quite a few of those writers are man by the way, and many of them do quite well writing young women. It obviously is not impossible to do as some people claim on forums.
This is making me quite hopeful because those books wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t a market for them in the younger generation.
Adult fantasy often gives a more conservative vibe and it’s often more or less about pre-modern wars with a bit of magic and magical creatures mixed in sometimes. I have to admit that my interest in most of those works is relatively small. Most of the things I do read are from the young adult camp and my own story is probably best for this target audience as well. Not only the gender roles but also the subject matters there tend to be closer to my taste, maybe because I haven’t left youth behind that long ago. 

There are two really frustrating issues concerning gender roles in fantasy, especially in fantasy discussion. 
One of them is the fact that gender roles are the subject matter where most people aren’t prepared to accept different approaches for supposed reasons of “realism.” 
Especially the casual use of sexual violence as a supposedly “normal thing” is bothering me. Just a few hours ago I’ve read a post on another forum where someone described his magic system using bodily fluids. His example was a mage abducting a woman, having her gang-raped every day and collecting the fluids obtained that way. 
If I had asked, what purposes menstrual blood has in his magic system, he’d probably be grossed out. The same goes for birth scenes. Rape is acceptable but normal female body processes are disgusting. I don’t even believe these people think much about it, it’s just seen as normal because it’s prevalent in so many “adult” fantasy books and that’s really worrying me. 
The second is the entire Mary Sue-issue. (Which is pleasantly absent on this forum. ) No matter how many times people claim that they only mind “Mary Sues” when they’re a sign of bad writing the fact remains that female characters who dare to be powerful and pretty at the same time often tend to be put into this category. In case of male characters, no one seems to be bothered by them being “too perfect” because they have more than one person with a romantic interest in them and are skilled at something.


----------



## JCFarnham

> There also seems to be a deeply rooted belief that there’s something  inherently bad about male sexual interest in women. Many people seem to  believe that sexual interest and respect for a woman can’t exist side by  side. (And still expect it to within relationships.)




Thank you for saying this. This is what my entire post was driving at (apparently I'm not coherent enough today to just come straight out with it  )

Of course the two can exist side by side! and in that sense it's not having alternatives with which to form an opinion that becomes the root cause of the issue I'd say.

I find it hard to believe any body is inherently bad. We all want more or less the same things and given a chance are usually willing to show it. When a belief becomes so fundemental that no amount of alternate opinion can change it.. well, that's the problem.


----------



## saellys

Cool women in armor find of the day: during an ill-advised search for "warrior girl" in the stock and reference section of DeviantArt (sweet God I will never be able to unsee most of that), I came across this gorgeous stock series. I am so in love with that leather work and the poses and the intensity of the model's eyes. 



Mindfire said:


> Re-post from my PMs with saellys:
> 
> As I expressed earlier, pragmatically, you can't expect male writers and artists to sexualize their own gender. I am a male writer and I once was (a very poor) male artist. And while I never stooped to the "mail-kini" level, I generally drew female characters to be attractive to my tastes, ranging from "cute" to "slightly exaggerated"*. My male characters, however, were not designed toward attractiveness, but towards ideals of cleverness and athleticism that I wanted for myself. Sexuality just didn't factor in. And if someone had asked me to draw a male character that was "attractive", my 14-year-old mind would have returned "does not compute".
> 
> My point is this: by suggesting that male artists and writers make male characters for the female eye to feast upon (I feel self-conscious just from writing that line), you are asking them to dive headfirst into the same ick-zone that encompasses the female media experience. (Thanks for that comic. It illustrates the point well.) Except you're asking them to do it willingly. And there's not enough empathy in the world to make them do that. The only way the scales will be "re-balanced" is if female writers and artists do it. As it stands the only alternative is to convince the media at large to stop sexualizing everyone and anyone altogether in the name of fairness (and good luck with that).
> 
> *I did make a point however to draw them with enough muscle to swing their swords and warhammers and whatnot. Though any brownie points for that are probably negated by the way I drew everything else.



And my reply: 

Your 14-year-old mind was just that: 14 years old. Since then, you have surely matured and developed a greater understanding for how women can fit into a story as more than just love interests or pretty accessories to your clever, athletic male characters. 

I don't consider it the same ick-zone at all. You say you feel self-conscious even acknowledging that women have any sort of sexual desire (for anything other than precisely the muscle-bound hulks men wish they were and portray themselves as), and historically, society has agreed that such ideas are shameful and must be hidden away, while consistently catering to and celebrating men's appetites. The comic illustrated that the sort of depictions of men which women might enjoy seeing actually aren't oversexualized at all--they just fall into a category that's essentially foreign to the artists who draw those monstrosities. The example revised Batman reminded me, if anything, of Benedict Cumberbatch, one of the manliest manly men alive. But I'm biased on that point, since I think Cumberbatch is the hottest thing anyway. 

As for rebalancing the scales by getting more female writers and artists in on the game, I am all for it. The problem is that when women try to enter these fields, they are told at every turn that their stories will not sell. It's the same circular logic that was in that thread over and over: there isn't a market for female-positive media because men aren't interested in it. The industries that create these media remain male-dominated year after year. Gaming and comics are obviously imbalanced, but television and books are too. 



JCFarnham said:


> I always find myself wondering about double standards in fantasy media.
> 
> I do think you have to remember who created the artefact in question and who it's for, though. That just cannot be extracted from the argument. It fair to say that fantasy is escapist in most cases, correct? Seems to me that what's really happening is that, yes, the creator of something is writing his or her own "fantasy". A man might write, or draw a hulk-type because that's what he'd quite like to be. Why he'd do that is another question entirely, but you do have to consider a certain amount of charicature goes into any fantasy. Hence, men end up muscled when really the ideal is "physically healthy", and the women end up as an over blown representation of what we grow up seeing in real life media.



What gets me about this is that men pay careful attention to how they want to be represented, but not how women want to be represented. 



JCFarnham said:


> It goes both ways though. I posit that you don't see the same _kind_ of oversexualisation in media by women (because it is, to me, all just different varieties of the same root problem) because they want different things. Is it a generalisation to say men idealise physical attributes and women ideals more abstract attributes? Perhaps. But I bet you can find all kinds of over emotional, over-kind, over-gentle, over-loving men in fiction by women with romantic elements. It's no where near as well publicised but thats the same sort of thing, e.g.,
> 
> The woman wearing unrealistic armour is more or less like that for the same _reason_ as a Mr Grey/Darcy clone... they're both overblown charicatures of an ideal.



I can understand the latter part, but it's a mistake to assume fiction by women with romantic elements which incorporate controlling stalker jackasses like Christian Grey (or Edward Cullen, to cut right to Grey's origin) is anywhere near as prevalent, publicized, or popular as the various genres that perpetuate idealized physical attributes of female characters. By the by, the absurd popularity of _Fifty Shades_ and _Twilight_ and their downright skeezy leading men says all kinds of really disturbing things about the way women have internalized mainstream patriarchy and are totally willing to accept it, so long as it wears a suitably pretty face. 



JCFarnham said:


> That in isolation isn't a problem. The issue comes when young people are brought up with no one grounding them in what is realistic. And so, some young men think it's okay to act like a women in cosplay wants to "be paid for services", but only because that's actually how they've been socialised to view the world.
> 
> I don't mean to be controversial as such, but I don't think we need to get rid of all unrealistic sexualised elements in visual fantasy. What we _do_ need is much more of the alternative. I think if young people can see both sides of the coin they'll be able to make a far more informed choice about their futures.



I assume the alternative you're suggesting is more full-rounded female characters who aren't just there for visual stimulation, and I am all for it. 



JCFarnham said:


> Let's be honest, I don't actually know a man who _truly_idolizes a fantasy character and even in a real life situation, I think when pressed most men (me included I suppose) would give you a more informed opinion. "I know, it's not realistic to assume X, and really, I don't really want huge racks and bleach blonde hair, or bikini's 24/7, I want Y." In all studies a certain amount of bias creeps in. Researchers assume most gamers or readers of genre fiction are male and that's what they find. The idea that _someone is to blame_ is the core issue here, blame more than anything suggests an us and them divide which further propagates the sub-conscious idea that people can't be equal.
> 
> I'd personally want to avoid the situation where the people standing up for a cause make the problem worse by shining a light on it (creating the loaded question and ultimate divider _"why are you doing that wrong?"_), and instead attack the roots. (as an example of what I mean here look into criticism of the whole S*utWalk thing, and why they do what they do, and what some people think is fundementally wrong with that.)



A contributor late in the previous thread said they understood the situation and recognized it as a problem, but they would probably still include depictions of impractically garbed women with particular assets in their future work. I went ahead and asked why, but I don't think the question was all that loaded since they had acknowledged that it was at least a little bit wrong. Sadly, the thread was closed before they could answer, so I hope they'll find their way to this discussion. I don't think it's a problem to explain to people who defend oversexualized portrayals of women that these things are problematic and alienating to half the population of the world, and to ask them to do what they can to fix it. It's polarizing, but sexism generally is. 

I'm glad you brought up SlutWalk. I am all for the reclamation of words intended for damaging purposes and I think what they're doing is very important when it comes to shining a spotlight on rape apologists at every level of society, but I personally don't ever want to see anyone called a slut ever again, for any reason.


----------



## saellys

Amanita said:


> Reading some of the comments here, I’m probably someone who can’t comment on this at all, because I have such a weird way of looking at it.
> I’m female but still like the sight of beautiful women. I never start to worry about my own ugliness when compared to them or something along those lines and I don’t try all kind of things to look like a model. So take my words with a grain of salt.



I'm in the same boat.



Amanita said:


> I don’t really consider most of them beautiful anyway though. When dealing with works created by others, I feel much less offended by a scarcely clad female character who actively does something to advance the plot than by a princess characters who’s abducted, raped and later rescued by the hero, no matter how “modestly” she might be dressed.
> It’s interesting to see how far the obsession with women’s clothes goes. Either it’s offensive because it’s covering too much or too little, hard to tell where the “acceptable” point is.



I don't think I've ever seen anyone get offended by women's clothing covering too much, unless it's someone taking personal offense at a woman who chooses to wear a hijab in public, which is a whole different level of messed up. As for the damsel in distress characters, yes, that is also a serious problem in the genre and it bothers me immensely as well. The Manic Pixie Dream Girl trope (more common in film and television than fantasy, though Denna in _The Name of the Wind_ is a recent example) is equally unrealistic and irritating. 



Amanita said:


> There also seems to be a deeply rooted belief that there’s something inherently bad about male sexual interest in women. Many people seem to believe that sexual interest and respect for a woman can’t exist side by side. (And still expect it to within relationships.)



Actually, as noted in the reply to Mindfire above, men's sexual interest in women has been largely celebrated and accommodated, while the idea that women might have desires of their own has been at best ignored and at worst treated as a grievous and punishable sin.



Amanita said:


> Many mythological female characters in traditionally male roles are virgins and either lose their power when they’re aren’t anymore such as BrÃ¼nhilde in the Nibelungenlied or cruelly punish any man who might come close to causing them to lose it such as the Greek goddess Arthemis.
> I can only guess why this is the case and I don’t want to exclude myself from those feeling that way sometimes.



Yeah, history and mythology are pretty wacky about the whole virginity thing. Women--they're only worth anything if their hymen is intact!



Amanita said:


> But back to the subject of female representation: I  agree with those stating that books with good female characters are more prevalent among stories geared at young adults. I’ve read quite a few of those where the authors dared to have really able female heroines. Quite a few of those writers are man by the way, and many of them do quite well writing young women. It obviously is not impossible to do as some people claim on forums.
> This is making me quite hopeful because those books wouldn’t exist if there wasn’t a market for them in the younger generation.



Just look at _The Hunger Games_' popularity.



Amanita said:


> Especially the casual use of sexual violence as a supposedly “normal thing” is bothering me. Just a few hours ago I’ve read a post on another forum where someone described his magic system using bodily fluids. His example was a mage abducting a woman, having her gang-raped every day and collecting the fluids obtained that way.



This makes me rage internally, and reminds me of when Crystal Dynamics redesigned Lara Croft and made her look more, well, physically possible. Then they added rapist savage islanders to the game, who would brutally assault her if we the players couldn't make her run fast enough. 



Amanita said:


> The second is the entire Mary Sue-issue. (Which is pleasantly absent on this forum. ) No matter how many times people claim that they only mind “Mary Sues” when they’re a sign of bad writing the fact remains that female characters who dare to be powerful and pretty at the same time often tend to be put into this category. In case of male characters, no one seems to be bothered by them being “too perfect” because they have more than one person with a romantic interest in them and are skilled at something.



And the misuse of that term also overlooks the fact that it was coined to describe when (overwhelmingly) female fanfic authors created female characters to insert in their favorite male-dominated stories, so it's charged with gender-specific connotations. Idealized authorial self-inserts are everywhere in fantasy: Rothfuss's Kvothe, Kay's Ammar ibn Khairan, Powers' Brendan Doyle. They don't get derisive terms--apart from Gary Stu, which is meant to hearken back to Mary Sue.


----------



## Reaver

saellys said:


> Then they added rapist savage islanders to the game, who would brutally assault her if we the players couldn't make her run fast enough.



I was a fan of Tomb Raider until just now. I had no idea that CD would do something so sick. What's the purpose of that? There's absolutely no reason for it other than to be misogynistic and vile.


----------



## JCFarnham

saellys said:


> I can understand the latter part, but it's a mistake to assume fiction by women with romantic elements which incorporate controlling stalker jackasses like Christian Grey (or Edward Cullen, to cut right to Grey's origin) is anywhere near as prevalent, publicized, or popular as the various genres that perpetuate idealized physical attributes of female characters. By the by, the absurd popularity of _Fifty Shades_ and _Twilight_ and their downright skeezy leading men says all kinds of really disturbing things about the way women have internalized mainstream patriarchy and are totally willing to accept it, so long as it wears a suitably pretty face.



To be honest you got to the crux of my problem with that kind of media. My problem _is _the internalisation of the patriarchy. The fact they were written doesn't necessarily say something is wrong (we all know they're ridiculously over blown) but the fact that women happily consume this type of stuff does bother me. As does men consuming copious amount of unrealistic body image stuff...



> I assume the alternative you're suggesting is more full-rounded female characters who aren't just there for visual stimulation, and I am all for it.



That's it exactly, but not to "rebalance" which would only create more of a divide (between those doing it for honourable reasons, those jumping on the bandwagon because its cool [which totally defeats the point] to the awful people who really just don't care enough] but to allow people the chance to see all sides of the issue and make their own minds up. You know?



> I'm glad you brought up SlutWalk. I am all for the reclamation of words intended for damaging purposes and I think what they're doing is very important when it comes to shining a spotlight on rape apologists at every level of society, but I personally don't ever want to see anyone called a slut ever again, for any reason.



One critique of the movement says that by reclaiming the word slut they are reducing it from being a derogatory term for a woman who sleeps around a lot with little moral compass, to simply someone with a healthy view of sexuality. I believe people where prompted to complete the phrase "I'm a slut because..." with their answer to "why do you think contraception is important". This maybe some what of a case of Chinese whispers, but do you see what I mean. I'm all for the message their going for but the reduction of the word to mean something good could be more damaging than people think. A slut in a traditional sense _isn't_ a person with a healthy attitude towards sexuality who uses contraception.

This is the heart of my point about activists creating more of a divide. What seems a great idea at the time can be misremembered by people, other could join in for the sake of seeming cool and missing the point... eventually you're left with a wrd that means nothing and most people not understanding the problem.

The same can be said for the portrayal of women in fantasy. Great things are being done, but I would hate for peep to be _forced_ into getting the wrong idea, right?


----------



## Kit

saellys said:


> I came across this gorgeous stock series. I am so in love with that leather work and the poses and the intensity of the model's eyes. .



At least she doesn't look like a hooker, but of course swordfighting in a long dress would be ill-advised. I'd grit my teeth and  take the chainmail bikini; I'd be more likely to live through the battle. And there's the long hair again. If I had to fight her, I'd think "Oooh- as soon as I get a handful of that hair, I'll be able to yank her head down and chop it (the head, not the hair) right off."

Much better, but still seeking "practical".


----------



## Mindfire

To respond to a couple things that have been brought up:

1. I think the whole "SlutWalk" thing is stupid. (Yeah, I'm not much for political correctness.) There's nothing to "reclaim". You can't make a bad thing into something good thing no matter how hard you try. And promiscuity is, as I see it, a bad thing. My only problem with the stigmatization of promiscuity is that the male side of it seems to escape criticism. Rather than make female promiscuity more socially acceptable, I think male promiscuity should be made more socially unacceptable.

2. I think the reason that men have been able to get away with being more promiscuous is that female sexuality, and therefore virginity, is seen as more valuable because women can have children. Men can't have children, and thus their sexuality is less valuable. Men are considered expendable, while women are to be guarded more closely.


----------



## Mindfire

Kit said:


> At least she doesn't look like a hooker, but of course swordfighting in a long dress would be ill-advised. I'd grit my teeth and  take the chainmail bikini; I'd be more likely to live through the battle. And there's the long hair again. If I had to fight her, I'd think "Oooh- as soon as I get a handful of that hair, I'll be able to yank her head down and chop it (the head, not the hair) right off."
> 
> Much better, but still seeking "practical".



Maybe it's not meant to be practical, but ceremonial? Looks like something a queen might wear. (On the throne, not the battlefield.)


----------



## Xaysai

The fact that I've never really thought much about any of this makes me feel like I am part of the problem.


----------



## saellys

JCFarnham said:


> ... the fact that women happily consume this type of stuff does bother me.



Me too. Until recently, my generation's unrealistic expectations for gender roles came from Disney movies, and that was bad enough. Now it seems everybody thinks it's the height of romance when a guy sneaks into your room and watches you sleep, or tells you, the day after you were almost raped by your closest friend, that it was all your fault. It falls into the "any attention is good attention" part of having extremely low self-esteem, and perpetuates two really insulting standards for men: they should look like Adonis, and act like your dad. Apparently that's the threshold for tolerating controlling and even abusive behavior. 



JCFarnham said:


> That's it exactly, but not to "rebalance" which would only create more of a divide (between those doing it for honourable reasons, those jumping on the bandwagon because its cool [which totally defeats the point] to the awful people who really just don't care enough] but to allow people the chance to see all sides of the issue and make their own minds up. You know?



To be honest, if it became cool enough that people developed well-rounded female characters just to keep up with the zeitgeist, I wouldn't mind their hollow motivation all that much. The zeitgeist has been the same for a terribly long time now, so even a temporary break would be swell. 



JCFarnham said:


> One critique of the movement says that by reclaiming the word slut they are reducing it from being a derogatory term for a woman who sleeps around a lot with little moral compass, to simply someone with a healthy view of sexuality. I believe people where prompted to complete the phrase "I'm a slut because..." with their answer to "why do you think contraception is important". This maybe some what of a case of Chinese whispers, but do you see what I mean. I'm all for the message their going for but the reduction of the word to mean something good could be more damaging than people think. A slut in a traditional sense _isn't_ a person with a healthy attitude towards sexuality who uses contraception.
> 
> This is the heart of my point about activists creating more of a divide. What seems a great idea at the time can be misremembered by people, other could join in for the sake of seeming cool and missing the point... eventually you're left with a wrd that means nothing and most people not understanding the problem.



SlutWalk is, like Occupy, a movement that had a very specific point to start with, but lost it as it grew and people adapted it to suit their needs. That being said, slut is a word whose original purpose was to belittle other human beings, like many other derogatory terms which have been abolished from polite conversation. There really isn't any reason to preserve it as-is. 



JCFarnham said:


> The same can be said for the portrayal of women in fantasy. Great things are being done, but I would hate for peep to be _forced_ into getting the wrong idea, right?



So if enough people create female characters in their stories and games and art who have motivation and personalities as thoroughly developed as their male counterparts and are portrayed wearing practical, character-appropriate garb, people might get the wrong idea?


----------



## Reaver

Mindfire said:


> Men are considered expendable, while women are to be guarded more closely.



You should read John Updike's essay "The Disposable Rocket".


----------



## JCFarnham

saellys said:


> So if enough people create female characters in their stories and games and art who have motivation and personalities as thoroughly developed as their male counterparts and are portrayed wearing practical, character-appropriate garb, people might get the wrong idea?



No of course not, it's the activist stance for it that could be a problem for forcing people to think "oh, well this person is telling me to think this, so it must be right, even though I don't get it." Not a problem on the face of it, more people believing in more 'appropriate' stuff is fine, but that doesn't really solve the problem. 

I'm saying I'd rather people have the chance to build a _truly_ healthy image of the world, through exposure to a little of both, rather than having no choice in the matter. (No choice leads to people who don't really get it. Just look at SlutWalk/Occupy/Etc. and the problems there.) 

For without anything to highlight _why_ something is good, how do we understand it?

Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, but real understanding is better than a surface level recognition. It's the different between _saying_ there's nothing wrong with being ginger and everyone believing it fundementally and the problems stopping. One helps, and the other... kind of but not really.


----------



## saellys

Xaysai said:


> The fact that I've never really thought much about any of this makes me feel like I am part of the problem.



Nah, you're just part of a society that has almost completely accepted it as a way of life. But now you're awake, Neo. 



JCFarnham said:


> No of course not, it's the activist stance for it that could be a problem for forcing people to think "oh, well this person is telling me to think this, so it must be right, even though I don't get it." Not a problem on the face of it, more people believing in more 'appropriate' stuff is fine, but that doesn't really solve the problem.
> 
> I'm saying I'd rather people have the chance to build a _truly_ healthy image of the world, through exposure to a little of both, rather than having no choice in the matter. (No choice leads to people who don't really get it. Just look at SlutWalk/Occupy/Etc. and the problems there.)
> 
> For without anything to highlight _why_ something is good, how do we understand it?
> 
> Maybe I'm just splitting hairs here, but real understanding is better than a surface level recognition. It's the different between _saying_ there's nothing wrong with being ginger and everyone believing it fundementally and the problems stopping. One helps, and the other... kind of but not really.



Okay, I definitely agree with your last point. If "hypersexualized women" is all people understand of the problem, the solution will be "cover ALL the boobies" and we'll end up with a variation on _The Handmaid's Tale_, which is obviously not a solution at all. 

That being said, I still believe that the most effective way to address the very specific problem of damaging portrayals of female characters in the fantasy genre is to point out specific examples of such portrayals and say, bluntly, "This isn't okay, and here's why." Sugar-coating it and mitigating language and saying, "I'd like it better if her boobs _weren't_ the same size as her head and concealed only by a strip of leather" can be shrugged off a lot easier by the people who will respond "I like it just fine!" That article Steerpike posted in response to the D&D developer acknowledging sexism in the artwork he approves said specifically that for every one person who complains about a particular piece of art, ten more e-mail him to tell him how great it is, so why would he change anything? 

A lot of people will just tune out after "This isn't okay," because they think it is okay, or at least they don't want their happy little world of being part of fandom X to be ruined by considering that some aspect of what they love might be problematic. (This comes up on Tumblr all the time, notably among fans of the show _Sherlock_ who defend its co-creator, Steven Moffat, against claims of misogynist handling of female characters.) And others will stick around to argue, and that's great, because as long as people are arguing, ideas are (theoretically) being exchanged. 

Education is a long and arduous process, but that doesn't make it any less important. The problem is that if I title a blog post, "The Basic Elements of Misogyny and How You Can Avoid Them," the overwhelming majority of the target audience would never read it because--surprise!--they don't consider themselves misogynist. A post titled, "Why [aspect of your favorite show] is Misogynist" has a chance of reaching more people _and_ making them think about the content, simply because it is blunt and direct and specific about something they enjoy.


----------



## Jabrosky

The gratuitous sexualization issue aside, for me the irksome thing about the majority scantily clad fantasy heroines is that over 90% of them are Northern European in appearance. Northern Europe ranks among the worst places in the world to walk around outdoors in a bikini, chain-mail or not. Maybe you could pull it off in the summertime when the temperatures are milder, but outside that time frame you would shiver to death. Furthermore, we of Northern European descent have so little melanin in our skin that we're vulnerable to sunburn and skin cancer if we move closer to the Equator, which receives higher ultraviolet radiation. There's a reason Northern Europeans have historically worn more clothing than other peoples for most of the year.


----------



## Sheilawisz

Now, this is like the greatest _coolness_ ever: Alice ready for the battle.

You can find a collection of detailed pictures of the Alice Armor right here!!

I love that movie =)


----------



## saellys

So... shiny...


----------



## Shockley

Jabrosky said:


> The gratuitous sexualization issue aside, for me the irksome thing about the majority scantily clad fantasy heroines is that over 90% of them are Northern European in appearance. Northern Europe ranks among the worst places in the world to walk around outdoors in a bikini, chain-mail or not. Maybe you could pull it off in the summertime when the temperatures are milder, but outside that time frame you would shiver to death. Furthermore, we of Northern European descent have so little melanin in our skin that we're vulnerable to sunburn and skin cancer if we move closer to the Equator, which receives higher ultraviolet radiation. There's a reason Northern Europeans have historically worn more clothing than other peoples for most of the year.



 That really depends on what kind of northern European you are, I'd think. I for one have never had any problem moving about in even twenty degree weather with relatively little clothing (I am much hairier than the average individual though, and my father's side is a mix of Anglo-Saxon, Swiss and Swedish), and many of our surviving descriptions of early Germanic peoples describe them as moving through things as cold as snow (in the Alps) with little clothing or even nude. 

 Another point not to the main purpose of this discussion: A low level bad wizard in the Black Company Chronicles would have a field day taking on a LotR wizard. As much as I love Gandalf, I feel like the Limper on a bad day would have little trouble taking him out. That's not even getting into a real hoss like SoulCatcher. 

 As to the main issue - I think we read too much into the artwork of fantasy novels. The artists are notoriously lax in reading the stories and creating art to match. I think it's the first edition of Fellowship of the Ring that has a lion sleeping under a palm tree as the cover art.


----------



## Steerpike

Shockley said:


> Another point not to the main purpose of this discussion: A low level bad wizard in the Black Company Chronicles would have a field day taking on a LotR wizard. As much as I love Gandalf, I feel like the Limper on a bad day would have little trouble taking him out. That's not even getting into a real hoss like SoulCatcher.



Yes, you're right. And they were afraid of The Lady.


----------



## Mindfire

Shockley said:


> Another point not to the main purpose of this discussion: A low level bad wizard in the Black Company Chronicles would have a field day taking on a LotR wizard. As much as I love Gandalf, I feel like the Limper on a bad day would have little trouble taking him out. That's not even getting into a real hoss like SoulCatcher.



That... doesn't make any sense. Gandalf shrugged off a 1000+ foot fall and afterwards bested the Balrog in epic combat. He _killed_ the _DEVIL*._ Are there no points to be awarded?


*Yes, I know Morgoth was technically the Satan of this universe until he withered away and ceded the role to Sauron, but the point stands.


----------



## saellys

Apropos of nothing and just out of curiosity, were there any other female wizards in _The Black Company Chronicles_, or was it just the one named after her gender?


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> That... doesn't make any sense. Gandalf shrugged off a 1000+ foot fall and afterwards bested the Balrog in epic combat. He _killed_ the _DEVIL*._ Are there no points to be awarded?
> 
> 
> *Yes, I know Morgoth was technically the Satan of this universe until he withered away and ceded the role to Sauron, but the point stands.



You obviously haven't read The Black Company.


----------



## Steerpike

saellys said:


> Apropos of nothing and just out of curiosity, were there any other female wizards in _The Black Company Chronicles_, or was it just the one named after her gender?



Soulcatcher is female. In fact, she is The Lady's sister. These are nicknames, not their real names. All the characters in the book go by nicknames. For example, the main POV character in the first books is Croaker.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> You obviously haven't read The Black Company.



Gandalf is nigh-omnipotent. The only reason he didn't do more was because the Valar kept him and the other wizards on a short leash.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Gandalf is nigh-omnipotent. The only reason he didn't do more was because the Valar kept him and the other wizards on a short leash.



Again, you haven't read the other books. You are arguing with only half the information.


----------



## saellys

Steerpike said:


> Soulcatcher is female. In fact, she is The Lady's sister. These are nicknames, not their real names.



This is definitely going on my to-read list, then!


----------



## Ankari

Steerpike said:


> Again, you haven't read the other books. You are arguing with only half the information.



What happens to Soulcatcher put me back in my chair.  I read that section of the series and thought "What the hell?"  I don't think Gandalf could have survived that.


----------



## Mindfire

Ankari said:


> What happens to Soulcatcher put me back in my chair.  I read that section of the series and thought "What the hell?"  I don't think Gandalf could have survived that.



But Gandalf serves Illuvatar, and Illuvatar is God. So if Illuvatar wills him to live, nothing can kill him. Even if his body is destroyed, he's not obliterated, he just becomes a disembodied spirit.


----------



## Steerpike

Ankari said:


> What happens to Soulcatcher put me back in my chair.  I read that section of the series and thought "What the hell?"  I don't think Gandalf could have survived that.



No. And it's nothing against Gandalf, a character I like. But the level of magic and power in The Black Company is just on an entirely different scale.


----------



## Ankari

Mindfire said:


> But Gandalf serves Illuvatar, and Illuvatar is God. So if Illuvatar wills him to live, nothing can kill him. Even if his body is destroyed, he's not obliterated, he just becomes a disembodied spirit.



There is only one thing for you to do: read _The Black Company_


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> But Gandalf serves Illuvatar, and Illuvatar is God. So if Illuvatar wills him to live, nothing can kill him. Even if his body is destroyed, he's not obliterated, he just becomes a disembodied spirit.



Heh. Whatever. We're talking about the characters in the mortal world as they are presented in their stories. If you start including the intervention of gods, by divine will or otherwise, then you can make the same argument about characters in any fantasy with a pantheon. No, unless your gods are actual characters that are vulnerable, they don't enter into it. Might just as well say Sheldon from Big Bang Theory could defeat them all because Jesus might come down and save him, and even if he dies he remains a soul that ascends to heaven.


----------



## Phietadix

What does all this have to do with the Topic?


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Just my two cents about this side conversation of Gandalf vs. Powerful Wizard from Something I Haven't Read:

I think most fans of anything will give the popular/likable character the benefit of the doubt in a battle between their guy/gal vs. anybody. But as writers, we really limit the power of our characters to reasonably match their opposition. As readers, we start making comparisons between characters from other worlds, but really, a high-powered character is only that powerful becuase his power level worked for that story (assuming the story isn't crap).

Where I'm going with this: Dr. Manhattan kills both wizards with a thought. On topic: his armor (a blue aura over his completely naked body) makes a chainmail bikini look modest.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike said:


> Heh. Whatever. We're talking about the characters in the mortal world as they are presented in their stories. If you start including the intervention of gods, by divine will or otherwise, then you can make the same argument about characters in any fantasy with a pantheon. No, unless your gods are actual characters that are vulnerable, they don't enter into it. Might just as well say Sheldon from Big Bang Theory could defeat them all because Jesus might come down and save him, and even if he dies he remains a soul that ascends to heaven.



That's ludicrous! Sheldon would never make it to heaven.


----------



## Legendary Sidekick

Will St. Peter give him a medal declaring him The Nicest of the Damned?


----------



## Reaver

Phietadix said:


> What does all this have to do with the Topic?



This does need to get back on topic. If you want to debate the "My wizard is better than your wizard" issue, start a new thread.


----------



## Mindfire

Steerpike started it.


----------



## Steerpike

Mindfire said:


> Steerpike started it.



Maybe some people hypersexualize Gandalf in their own minds.

Still, to get back on topic, I do think the predominance of hypersexual portrayals of females in games and visual media, particularly in fantasy, is a problem. This is not to mean that any and all depictions of the female form, scantily clad or sexually suggestive, are bad. It simply means that when the bulk of the depictions are centered around those things, it is indicative of something running through the culture in that industry, and it is something that is not welcoming to or friendly to women unless they are the objects of sexual desire.


----------



## saellys

Steerpike said:


> Maybe some people hypersexualize Gandalf in their own minds.
> 
> Still, to get back on topic, I do think the predominance of hypersexual portrayals of females in games and visual media, particularly in fantasy, is a problem. This is not to mean that any and all depictions of the female form, scantily clad or sexually suggestive, are bad. It simply means that when the bulk of the depictions are centered around those things, it is indicative of something running through the culture in that industry, and it is something that is not welcoming to or friendly to women unless they are the objects of sexual desire.



Let me tell you, I sexualize the poo out of Gandalf. 

So I have to thank you for introducing me to Gaming As Women, because it has replaced Mythic Scribes as my number one time-waster on the Internet! This post was particularly awesome and relevant to the topic making people sexual and sexy (two different things that can exist simultaneously, but often don't) in an equal opportunity fashion. I particularly love what Cangini says about avoiding the supermodel vacant stare--every person in her artwork has an identifiable, engaged expression on their face. Faces can be sexy! Who knew?


----------



## Steerpike

You are welcome, saellys. It's a very good blog, and I enjoy reading the articles there.


----------



## Reaver

Legendary Sidekick said:


> Will St. Peter give him a medal declaring him The Nicest of the Damned?



Nope. I already won the last ten years and I'm a shoe-in to get this year's.


----------



## Shockley

Off-Topic: I now want a 'Wizard versus Wizard' thread. Someone should make someone so we should keep it going.

 On-Topic: As a total side thought, one of the more effective armors has always been boiled leather with strips of metal strapped on (and that was the basic armor for a long, long time). You wouldn't need to do much to make that fully functional for a woman.


----------



## Mindfire

That link doesn't work...


----------



## Jabrosky

Shockley said:


> As a total side thought, one of the more effective armors has always been boiled leather with strips of metal strapped on (and that was the basic armor for a long, long time). You wouldn't need to do much to make that fully functional for a woman.


I wonder, exactly how tough would boiled leather be? I mean, what kind of weapons could pierce it?


----------



## saellys

Here's a thread about that. It's tougher than skin, at any rate.


----------



## Shockley

Jabrosky said:


> I wonder, exactly how tough would boiled leather be? I mean, what kind of weapons could pierce it?



 Anything that pierces, but then again anything that pierces would also tear through chainmail so it's not that much of a step down. The main benefit of leather armor is that it wouldn't be as restrictive (if made properly) as metal armor and allows swifter movement. Not exactly that useful if you're in the middle of a shield wall and your enemies are lined up on the ancient form of a mechanized slaughtering block, but useful in broader, less controlled conflicts.


----------



## JBryden88

Reaver said:


> I was a fan of Tomb Raider until just now. I had no idea that CD would do something so sick. What's the purpose of that? There's absolutely no reason for it other than to be misogynistic and vile.



I feel the need to chime in here too late - they do not rape her. They kill her if you fail. You know... like any game in which you kill enemies or die.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

saellys said:


> This hasn't been covered, actually. In my experience, it is extremely rare to find a female character portrayed with the same range of possibilities male characters enjoy. I can't name a female character as powerful as Gandalf, as attractive as Jaime Lannister with an equal level of proficiency and experience...



But isn't the beautiful ass-kicking heroine a cliche that writers are urged to avoid? Or at the very least, a cliche?

Jaime works as the beautiful male ass-kicker because he's not the hero. The cliche was turned on its head and he became a villain that we're meant to hate instead of the gorgeous and all-perfect knight we're accustomed to rooting for.


----------



## Jabrosky

Sheriff Woody said:


> But isn't the beautiful ass-kicking heroine a cliche that writers are urged to avoid? Or at the very least, a cliche?


Meh, I actually love that "cliche". I like ass-kicking characters, and I like beautiful women, so combining the two archetypes into one character makes a good deal in my view. Of course these heroines need some balancing and moderation to avoid Mary Sue-dom, as do their male equivalents, but I wouldn't avoid it completely.


----------



## Feo Takahari

Speaking in the broad sense, the problem with the beautiful ass-kicker is where she came from, not what she is. She started as the beautiful damsel, an essentially mindless construct who exists only for men to fight over her. In deference to modern political correctness, writers started making more female characters who could defend themselves, but they often had no more personality or motivation than the damsels of old. (Some folks also complain that the ass-kickers tend to wind up as hostages anyway, but I think that's not as clear-cut. Even a strong character can be overpowered, and there's nothing inherently wrong with giving the protagonist something personal to fight for.)

Anyway,I think Kim Possible stands as the perfect example of how this archetype can be repurposed.* She's strong, but she's also human, and she can be selfish, petty, and otherwise imperfect, and it's fun to watch her struggle against both dangerous foes and her own insecurities.

*Kim can also be interpreted as a female Ace. Which is even weirder, since Aces are almost never protagonists--they're rivals to protagonists who're more like Ron. This is directly addressed in the finale.


----------



## Sheriff Woody

Feo Takahari said:


> ...writers started making more female characters who could defend themselves, but they often had no more personality or motivation than the damsels of old.



Precisely. This is an example of treating the symptom and not the problem. 

The beautiful ass-kicker needs their positive traits and skills balanced out with "negative" ones, much like Jaime Lannister.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne

If you want an excellent example of a rounded female ass-kicker, check out Elizabeth Moon's _Paksenarrion_ series. Paks starts out as a soldier and later becomes... well, more than that.  I'm not actually a huge fan of those books, as I think the story structure is really weird and (in some places) boring, but the characters are very well-drawn, and Paks is someone who's an obvious forerunner of (e.g.) Brienne of Tarth.


----------

