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

[Devor]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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 trulyidolizes 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 Brünhilde 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Let's be honest, I don't actually know a man who trulyidolizes 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]

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.

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.

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.

Many mythological female characters in traditionally male roles are virgins and either lose their power when they’re aren’t anymore such as Brünhilde 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!

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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.

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.

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.

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]

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

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