DragonOfTheAerie
Vala
i wish my uterus was glowy and granted immunity to arrows. mine is just stabbing me viciously in the gut right now
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Why Women Warriors are Scantily Clothed
- Thread starter Michael K. Eidson
- Start date
pmmg
Myth Weaver
Maybe you are not using it right. Try wearing less armor and showing off a little more midriff
rhd
Troubadour
Straight men might find it funny, women who are also fed on such imagery might find it funny, they're still parodied versions (and it is kinda funny). If you look at old homoerotic beefcake photos you'll realise there's an hierarchy involved and if the submissive/objectifying poses might make you feel uncomfortable then you might realize (not due to any form of homophobia) we're just so used to seeing women especially in mainstream western media looking like that, while they're doing everything from washing the dishes to walking the dog so sexy sexy sexy. Women don't have to be sexualised all the time in every form of art, and that's the point being made, also calling out the ridiculous sexual empowerment nonsense when all they're actually is catering to some teen male gaze. I clearly recall reading my brother's comics as a twelve year old and being humiliated by the way women were shown, but also completely confused because I loved the art and the stories. I suggest watching John Berger's Ways of Seeing: Women, it might give you a fresh perspective.
I hate to explain this when the actual point of the OP was a fun comic strip.
No one finds it funny, rhd. We get it. Which is why we are posting and criticizing it. But at the end of the day, you have to laugh at the ridiculousness.
Regarding Amazons, did you know that some believe the etymology of the word was a - mazos, which in greek meant "one breast"? They think they cut a boob off so they could aim better with arrows.
No one shows that in comics because seventeen year old boys like their women with two boobs. And because boobs are also bullet proof. Obviously.
Regarding Amazons, did you know that some believe the etymology of the word was a - mazos, which in greek meant "one breast"? They think they cut a boob off so they could aim better with arrows.
No one shows that in comics because seventeen year old boys like their women with two boobs. And because boobs are also bullet proof. Obviously.
Give yourself twenty years and two babies. You'll wish you could bronze it and put in on your mantle.
rhd
Troubadour
I was referring to the hawkeye initiative which annoying kid was referring to.
Annoyingkid
Banned
It is just a fun comic strip. It's not biting criticism because the Hawkeye Initiative style criticism is based on the idea that men in these poses and outfits are comical and absurd, and thus in theory allowing the men who view it to evaluate the poses and outfits with their heterosexuality taken out of the equation. Thus concluding the poses and outfits are comical and this persists when they see women in these poses again. Causing a change in perspective and a shift in paradigm.
The reason this doesn't work is because culture tells us all the time that men in submissive poses and scantily clad outfits are a source of comedy and absurdity. While simultaneously promoting women in the same poses and outfits as sexually glamourized. So people are used to holding those two propositions as true at the same time without cognitive dissonance. So all this style of criticism does, is perpetuate the idea that men who engage in submissiveness are figures to be laughed at.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
I think boobs might be the most powerful force in the universe.
Annoyingkid
Banned
Thing is if you have a woman warrior wear armour for practicality, the question then comes why is her face exposed, why aint she wearin it like this; http://c8.alamy.com/comp/A7WBKW/wea...late-armour-for-archduke-sigismung-A7WBKW.jpg
The answer is it can get confusing if enemies are being practical and wearing plate as well and people want to see the character emote. So that's already making concessions based on what the audience wants to see. Any creator who makes those concessions isn't arguing from a strong position regarding the practicality of other characters.
The answer is it can get confusing if enemies are being practical and wearing plate as well and people want to see the character emote. So that's already making concessions based on what the audience wants to see. Any creator who makes those concessions isn't arguing from a strong position regarding the practicality of other characters.
Russ
Istar
I trust you would concede there is a slight difference between going visor up, or no helmet for the purpose of recognizing a character or seeing them emote and basically having female characters dress like modern strippers for the purpose of titillating male consumers?
And that whole get confusing thing, is why armour like that was worn with a surcoat with heraldry on it, when it wasn't be using in a parade, but that is a different topic.
pmmg
Myth Weaver
Well, those shoes are a little pointy, and it would be hard to accessorize, but...
I suppose, deep down inside, I am too willing to make concessions. Helmets go on and helmets come off. I don't have a chainmail bikini in the story, but if I thought it would make sense... Are we sure that wonder woman's armor would not really protect?
Annoyingkid
Banned
In visual media, to see the character emote effectively, the entire face needs to be seen from more than one angle and distance, it typically requires minimal head protection. Visual media doesn't have paragraphs of description, so the ability to emote is vital. So much so that Ironman has a little in helmet camera for the audience to see. But this doesn't work with traditional armours as the inside of the helm wouldn't be bright enough.
That difference lies in arguments against sexualization and gender bias. If we are just talking practicality, the principle is the same. Someone would be right to ask why one concession to the audience at the expense of practicality is okay and the other is not.
Heraldry works when theres only two people in a fight. If we're talking more than two, it can still get confusing.
Russ
Istar
The discussion has never been just about practicality.
Heraldry works with thousands and thousands of people in a battle. And it worked effectively that way for centuries. That is how all those real people wearing real helmets fighting real battles did it.
IF you think about it, facial recognition on the battlefield would be far less effective than heraldry, even if nobody wore helmets.
Annoyingkid
Banned
Other soldiers in a battle don't need to empathise with other soldiers the way an audience needs to empathise with characters. Nor are audiences trained to keep track of heraldry. http://theminiaturespage.com/polls/pics/fan/jan03/1256541669a.jpg Try picking out a character in this mess.
The practicality argument is non sequitr to the real issue, that of sexism in different standards of sex appeal for males and females. The practicality argument is founded on an elitist and wrongheaded idea that more historically accurate inherently = better. Nightwing faces gunfire with his entire head exposed and it works fine. Nobody complains.
Last edited:
Russ
Istar
Firstly, not everything is a comic book or visual medium. You should consider that from time to time.
Secondly the practicality issue is an underpinning of the sexism argument. It is not in this context a separate argument. The obvious impracticality of much female armour in fiction (visual and otherwise) is evidence that supports the conclusion that the use of said armour is sexist. Simple enough isn't it?
I have not seen anyone suggest that historically accurate is inherently better. Is that just your straw man or did I miss someone here suggesting that? I do believe that audiences today are more rational and demanding than prior generations, but that is a different story.
And you do agree with me that your suggestion that heraldry is ineffective when used on more than two people was simply unfounded right? Or are you sticking with that one?
Annoyingkid
Banned
You should consider that the OP used a comic book in his original post and was obviously talking about characters in comics and visual media.
Practicality is not the underpinning of the sexism argument. The male gaze and versatility in female portrayal is the underpinning. The idea that men get to be more than just sexy in visual design and poses.
Again, when a male character faces gunfire or weapons with their entire head exposed and without armour, nobody cares.
When a woman does it, feminists lose their minds,
"historically accurate is inherently better." doesn't have to be said outright, because that is the argument being made when one inherently places practicality over stylization,
And no, I don't agree with you about heraldry. I probably could not keep track of one character in this sea of colour. http://theminiaturespage.com/polls/pics/fan/jan03/1256541669a.jpg
Last edited:
Russ
Istar
Than perhaps you could explain how hundreds of thousands of people, did it for centuries? Including up to the modern era, when we started calling them uniforms.
QUOTE="Annoyingkid, post: 281093, member: 4784"]
Again, when a male character faces gunfire or weapons with their entire head exposed and without armour, nobody cares.
When a woman does it, feminists lose their minds,
[/QUOTE]
It appears you have missed the entire point, perhaps intentionally misstating the concern.
The concern is that while men (with or without helmets) are portrayed in ways that depict them as more than just sexual objects, that women are much more often portrayed in ways that depict them as just sexual objects. The concern is that women are treated in a way that treats them more as objects and dehumanizes them.
And feminists don't "lose their minds" about these things, they are concerned or troubled by them and speak up about it. Your attempt to portray their concern as irrational is a sexist and bullying attempt to silence people with a concern. You may wish to consider more civil language when discussing important issues. Tossing around insults at groups rarely moves a dialogue forward and really reflects quite badly on you. I could respond in kind, but out of respect for the decorum of this place, won't.
Annoyingkid
Banned
Than perhaps you could explain how hundreds of thousands of people, did it for centuries?
Audiences need to be able to pick out individual characters, and empathize with them. Historically, battles were regimental. Picking out the identity of individuals wasn't important. As long as one could tell friend from foe and tell what regiment each belonged to, they were fine.
The concern is that while men (with or without helmets) are portrayed in ways that depict them as more than just sexual objects, that women are much more often portrayed in ways that depict them as just sexual objects. The concern is that women are treated in a way that treats them more as objects and dehumanizes them.
"More often" are the operative words. The issue is one of diversity, not practicality. There is nothing inherently wrong with the impractical in fiction.
And feminists don't "lose their minds" about these things, they are concerned or troubled by them and speak up about it. Your attempt to portray their concern as irrational is a sexist and bullying attempt to silence people with a concern. You may wish to consider more civil language when discussing important issues. Tossing around insults at groups rarely moves a dialogue forward and really reflects quite badly on you. I could respond in kind, but out of respect for the decorum of this place, won't.
You say feminists don't lose their minds... while posting a hilariously butthurt tone policing rant.
When Aragorn marches helmless on the black gate, nobody cares. When Nightwing, Green Arrow, Conan, Rambo and more fight with vital parts exposed nobody cares. These characters are no more or less practical than the sexualized female ones. The difference is that their impracticality is used to convey more than sex appeal, they typically communicate strength and authority. The sexualized portrayal is not in itself a problem, the imbalance is. But that reflects the standards in all of western culture.
Last edited:
If you can't discuss without personal attacks, please excuse yourself from the thread.
