Men and women are actually different. I know that's a horribly politically incorrect thing to say. But it nevertheless happens to be true.Not really? Most people accept that there are some differences between men and women. The argument simply arises whether it is biological or sociological in origin, something that is pretty difficult to determine because they are inextricably linked and it's somewhat of a "chicken or egg" situation...
There's also a big difference between "Some evidence suggests that women process sexual attraction differently to men" and "The wage gap exists because women innately do not have a drive to become certain careers".
Tina/Terra from Final Fantasy VITerra was AWESOME. Now I'm one of the weird people who really enjoyed FF13 (although my experience may have been coloured by my constant Vanille x Fang shipping...) but Lightning can't hold a candle to Terra. FF6's story and characterisation is amazing, especially with a female lead, and especially for a game back in the SNES days.
That said, I believe reading that apparently Terra wasn't considered the "lead character" by the designers, and it's more of a collectively shared role between her, Locke, uhh... was it Edward? The prince dude... and Celes. Or something like that. Will have to source where I read that first.
One of the things that make FFVI such a great game is that there was no "main" character. Much of the plot revolved arround Terra, but almost everyone was important. Locke, Terra, Celes, Edgar, Sabin, and Cyan all go through signficant and interesting character growth, with the others being secondary but also interesting.
One of the things I liked about Celes was that it showed a strong, independant woman who stepped outside of her comfort zone into a more feminine one with the Opera. Sure, she needs saving when you first meet her, but after the end of the world it is her determination that saves Cid and gets the party back together when the others are lost.
In my opinion the reason I like "scantly-clad" women is because they have such an awesome body in comparison to guys and can get more attention and admiration about it then men.This is one of the most idiotic arguments in the world and I hear it all the time. You are, I assume, a heterosexual male. You find women more attractive than men. There's nothing wrong with that. But you need to recognize that you find women attractive because of your sexual orientation, not because it's a universal truth.
NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A HETEROSEXUAL MALE.
Not everyone likes scantily clad women. I don't actively dislike them, necessarily, but they don't do anything for me. In terms of interest, they would rank somewhere above filing cabinets and below potted plants. I would much rather look at a scantily clad male, thank you very much. That's my orientation.
Actually plenty of studies have shown that both men and women will stare at scantily clad women, and neither men nor women stare much at scantily clad men. This study indicates that men find the majority of women somewhat attractive, while women find the majority of men to be unattractive. However it also shows that men direct about 2/3 of their attention to the 1/3 of the most attractive women while women give "unattractive" men more attention than they give the "hottest" men.
Men and women are actually different. I know that's a horribly politically incorrect thing to say. But it nevertheless happens to be true.
The problem is not that heterosexual males find certain kinds of women attractive.
More than anything, I find the lack of *choice* to be the issue, especially in video games. I have drawn more than a few pieces of fan service, have played more than a few games where there was a damsel in distress, ran quite a few games where there were many interesting characters of all kinds for tabletop games. But rarely am I given the *choice* between the Pretty Pretty Princess Supermodel protagonist and the Rugged Tough Been-Through-a-Meatgrinder Lady protagonist in a video game.
Actually, based on anita sarkeesian article, making sure that any player heroine is a choice is the issue.
But, as processing power and customer diversity increase, I am pretty sure that options will also increase.
The problem is not that heterosexual males find certain kinds of women attractive.
Actually, it is. Two ways:
I just started playing Dragon's Dogma (I know, I'm behind the curve on video games), but I was quite pleased at the variety and detail you can put on your character model. Of course, when it comes to clothing you pick whatever is the best boost to stats. My main's current fur leggings show a more leg than I would like. My female companion's robe doesn't show much of anything.
As an example of the kind of strategy/leadership/focus I'd like to see:
http://www.comicsalliance.com/2013/03/11/donkey-kong-father-hack-pauline-sa ves-mario-video/
Do you have the statistics and criteria for how thse results where found? I do not mean that to be rude, it just seems extremely, odd. For instance, it notes that 44% of played video games are Puzzle/Board/Game Show/Trivia/Card, which is probably more indicitive of Solitare and Facebook games rather than "the gaming community/culture", but only 23% pay to play games online. WoW made the top 5 games purchased (3 times), but Persistant MMO only accunts for 16% of the population of gamers, and Strategy/RPG's are a seperate 21%? Age of Conan, Warhammer, and again a 4th WoW follow in the top 10 most purchased games of that year.
And you'd be right. Not only is it odd, it's misleading.
This has been reported in the past - IGN and even local papers (through the Associated Press) have reported it. While the high percentage of female video game players is accurate, it turns out that the majority of them are playing Farmville and Facebook games, Windows Solitaire, Angry Birds, Where's My Water, and the like. Using the above statistic, and then talking about "EA" and "Ubisoft", gets a 'stop right there'. Doing so would be inaccurate - worse when talking about "marketing to only 60% or less of your audience is terrible business sense".
Once you're talking about EA, Ubisoft, and so-called "AAA" console-like games, the vast majority is indeed male. And make no mistake, companies making such games know where their bread is buttered. As alluded to in a few posts just above, it is risky to deviate - the idea that some type of 'reckoning' is coming and these companies are going to 'lose' a schwack of money because of who they cater to is likely false. Males aren't decreasing their purchasing or playing - females are increasing.
Choice is certainly good, and hopefully companies make money off of providing choice. With that said, I have zero interest in things being 'taken away'. This particular consumer, for one, is being catered to just fine (I like certain sexualized games *cough*DOA*cough*), so I (personally) have little interest in seeing the status quo change. Though I certainly won't stand in anyone's way. Adding choice? Good. Taking things away? Bad. (At that point, I would 'try to stop' others. Somebody mentioned that they're tired of seeing chainmail bikinis and the like. I'm not, so I'd rather those not disappear. But adding a similar 'choice'? Fine with me. Same with a LoZ game in which one plays Zelda. I'm fine with what I've been provided so far for the LoZ series, so I'm not actively wanting that. But I would probably buy and play it anyways, since - for me - I don't really care one way or the other, since gameplay is #1.)
I think the people making the jump to c are just looking to get offended. Saying that a game I play has sexist elements doesn't imply that I myself am sexist any more than saying playing games with violent elements must mean that I approve of violence.
You say that, but I think a lot of people can reasonably infer a reason to be ... let's say, "touchy" here. If the argument runsa) Games x, y, and z have some sexist elements to them.
and
b) Having sexist elements in game is BAD because it affects people in x,y,z waysIt's hard not to infer that
c) People who like games with sexist elements must be bad/sexist (to some degree).
You completely skipped over the second element in my line of reasoning (labeled "b"). There is a significant difference between saying "this game is a bit sexist," and saying "this game is a bit sexist, and that's bad." A moral judgement is being applied in the second statement, as opposed to a simple observation.
There's a difference between macro and micro elements here again. There is no problem at all when individual games are like Mario and Zelda with male heroes and females to rescue. The problem comes in when a large chunk of the games industry ends up treating female characters as something to rescue or something to motivate the protagonist rather than a character in their own right. Individual games are perfectly free to portray characters in all sorts of ways, but the point people are making is that when you look at the wider games industry as a whole female characters seem to be put in a subservient position far more often than men.
I agree with you here.
The desired goal would be that women should have as much choice in gaming role models as men do. Now you may feel that's already the case, or that the nature if the industry should mean it shouldn't be aiming for equality between the sexes.
Neither of these are points that I made.
If so there's nothing wrong with forming an argument along those lines. But feeling offended because somebody has pointed out that one of the games you enjoy perpetuates the gender stereotypes? I think that's missing the point and taking offense that isn't there.Unless somebody actually says 'Mario is evil and everyone who plays his games is evil!' then you probably shouldn't assume they mean that.
I think you've missed my point: because of a failure to be clear and specific, people are inferring things that they can, fairly reasonably, infer. Offense might not be intended, but because the arguments are not put in precise terms, ambiguity is created that can cause people to misinterpret what is actually meant.
In other words, I'm talking about how the message is delivered, not so much the message itself.
Tina/Terra from Final Fantasy VITerra was AWESOME. Now I'm one of the weird people who really enjoyed FF13 (although my experience may have been coloured by my constant Vanille x Fang shipping...) but Lightning can't hold a candle to Terra. FF6's story and characterisation is amazing, especially with a female lead, and especially for a game back in the SNES days.
That said, I believe reading that apparently Terra wasn't considered the "lead character" by the designers, and it's more of a collectively shared role between her, Locke, uhh... was it Edward? The prince dude... and Celes. Or something like that. Will have to source where I read that first.
See, I'd comment on FF13 but I've somewhat cut myself off from the series since XI, which filled me with a hatred worthy of the Ship to Ship combat of LockeXTerra vs EdwardXCeles ultimate couple battlers.
Also, I disagree with designers, silly as that may be, with regards to Terra's lack of lead status - certainly, there were major protagonist roles filled by several of the cast, in order to get the best ending, but the game opens with Terra, and in the final (heh!) shot of the game, Terra is the centerpiece. It may not have been intended for her to be as much of a star as she was, but the results remain.
A substantial portion of the story revolves around her.
That being said, I'm curious as to your opinions on the rest of my list of protagonists, though I will also note that, as the times have changed, and in spite of some of the systemic issues that arose of console gaming initially being treated as a 'guy thing', a substantial number of game protagonists outside of the RPG genre defaulted to male protagonists simply out of analogous genre conventions - shoot-em-ups followed action blockbuster movies, et al., and for all the perceived niche market that vidgaming was perceived to be, it had less incentive or impetus to be early adoptors of new paradigms in the way mainstreamed products tended to do (movies, television, etc).
In light of that, though, once vidgames started to become more generally acceptable, there was certainly no lack of attempts by smart companies to cater to the most common parts of the periphery, explaining among other things the explosion of certain types of puzzle games, not to stereotype. In my case, my sister was into fighting games, and I taught her all the cheap ways to punk people in the arcades, while my mom would hog my consoles to play Tetris, Zoop, and Doctor Mario, among others like Qix...which might explain why I'm such a freaking Lumines addict. It's in the blood...
|
Men, especially in the modern age don't have a ritual which confirms your manhood for all time. Instead they are pressured to reaffirm it on a frequent basis, as perceived levels of machismo establish a social pecking order. And one of the ways they do so is through the objectification of women, and employing power over women and other men. (BTW, don't ever let anyone sell you on the idea of rape as a sexual crime. It is a crime borne out of the motivation of power over someone whether that someone is a woman or a man.
IT's a double edged sword. Men who don't continually press their sexuality are questioned by other men and are seen as a threat if their "anti-male" qualities are allowed to contaminate other men. That's why homophobia is generally more violently expressed against men, as women are not perceived to have any manliness to lose, although a powerful woman may very well weaken a man's perceived image of his self machismo....
WOW...I don't know any men who act like this...I don't know any women who think like this...I am happy I live in a very different world. I'm not sure how a discussion about fantasy pictures in a pretend game led to this but ... this sounds like someone who spent a lot of time in psychology class listening to people very angry with men expressing a view based on very bad personal experiences far outside the norm.
More than anything, I find the lack of *choice* to be the issue, especially in video games. I have drawn more than a few pieces of fan service, have played more than a few games where there was a damsel in distress, ran quite a few games where there were many interesting characters of all kinds for tabletop games. But rarely am I given the *choice* between the Pretty Pretty Princess Supermodel protagonist and the Rugged Tough Been-Through-a-Meatgrinder Lady protagonist in a video game.Actually, based on anita sarkeesian article, making sure that any player heroine is a choice is the issue.
But, as processing power and customer diversity increase, I am pretty sure that options will also increase.
The problem is not that heterosexual males find certain kinds of women attractive.Actually, it is. Two ways:
This is what is driving the Marketing based decisions about how female (and to a degree male) characters are "drawn" in games. Not all heterosexual men find the same "kinds" of women attractive (aka "Sexy is Not a Size.")
Your second point is meaningless to what I said. Yes, I understand your point, but it still has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
Your first point is interesting as it draws a very specific distinction. It isn't that people find certain types attractive that is sexist... it's the actions that sometimes accompany that attraction that are sexist.
Finding someone attractive is not inherently sexist. Bad behavior based on that attraction can be. There is a very distinct difference.
Your second point is meaningless to what I said. Yes, I understand your point, but it still has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.The problem is not that heterosexual males find certain kinds of women attractive.Actually, it is. Two ways:
This is what is driving the Marketing based decisions about how female (and to a degree male) characters are "drawn" in games. Not all heterosexual men find the same "kinds" of women attractive (aka "Sexy is Not a Size.")
Not quite. It has to do with a lack of diversity in female characters. (See Lilith's comment.)
Your first point is interesting as it draws a very specific distinction. It isn't that people find certain types attractive that is sexist... it's the actions that sometimes accompany that attraction that are sexist.
That is the vital distinction. Without that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Finding someone attractive is not inherently sexist. Bad behavior based on that attraction can be. There is a very distinct difference.
This leads back to my original point.
But what I don't want to do is throw the other consumer groups "under the bus" so to speak.
Actually plenty of studies have shown that both men and women will stare at scantily clad women, and neither men nor women stare much at scantily clad men.I don't know if that's true or not, but it sounds related to (the one article I read about) female sexual fluidity.
Based on the literature out there, sexual orientation is fixed. How you act on it varies, but the innate attraction or not doesn't change. I've never seen any hard science backing up any claims of the "fluidity" thing, and quite a bit of the opposite. It's one of those pop-(pseudo)science things, though obviously a well done evidence-based study could change my mind.
I suspect any notion of sexual fluidity has more to do with social expectations and people repressing their own preferences earlier in life because of it, and later coming to a self-realization of it later in life. But nothing changed in the brain on a physical level.
|
Do you have the statistics and criteria for how thse results where found? I do not mean that to be rude, it just seems extremely, odd. For instance, it notes that 44% of played video games are Puzzle/Board/Game Show/Trivia/Card, which is probably more indicitive of Solitare and Facebook games rather than "the gaming community/culture", but only 23% pay to play games online. WoW made the top 5 games purchased (3 times), but Persistant MMO only accunts for 16% of the population of gamers, and Strategy/RPG's are a seperate 21%? Age of Conan, Warhammer, and again a 4th WoW follow in the top 10 most purchased games of that year.And you'd be right. Not only is it odd, it's misleading.
This has been reported in the past - IGN and even local papers (through the Associated Press) have reported it. While the high percentage of female video game players is accurate, it turns out that the majority of them are playing Farmville and Facebook games, Windows Solitaire, Angry Birds, Where's My Water, and the like. Using the above statistic, and then talking about "EA" and "Ubisoft", gets a 'stop right there'. Doing so would be inaccurate - worse when talking about "marketing to only 60% or less of your audience is terrible business sense".
That's what I was honestly thinking as well. I didn't want to just say it, because I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it, based on my experience. I know a few people that work in gaming stores, and the stats mentioned are almost completely contrary to what the report suggests. Even more so with the 2012 reports, but I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt that it may have just been my areas, (doubtful, but possible). I would say this even even more true with TTRPG's, and that female customers are the extreme minority, but existant. That being said, I am not a huge video-gamer, so I'm honestly not sure past my own personal experience across more than a few states in the US.
|
|
Based on the literature out there, sexual orientation is fixed. How you act on it varies, but the innate attraction or not doesn't change. I've never seen any hard science backing up any claims of the "fluidity" thing, and quite a bit of the opposite. It's one of those pop-(pseudo)science things, though obviously a well done evidence-based study could change my mind.
I suspect any notion of sexual fluidity has more to do with social expectations and people repressing their own preferences earlier in life because of it, and later coming to a self-realization of it later in life. But nothing changed in the brain on a physical level.
I'm no expert, but I'm not sure about that, honestly. I've know, and talked heavily with a few men that where gay, and (most of them for religious reasons) actively decided to become heterosexual. While talking to them, they essentually said that it was difficult for a while, but later they where happy with their choice, and they did change, not only their physical desires, but also just a lot of other things. They did often stress though, that it was a choice rather than a sort of disposition.
While I was depolyed, (and I have heard this from others as well), there are just times when heterosexuals, due to lack of (available) opposite sex individuals for long periods of time "experiment", and then upon returning are only attracted to the opposite sex. Likewise, in the middle east, there is a very distinct understanding that "men are for pleasure, women are for babies" among the very heterosexual population. You may have heard people joke about "man-love Thursdays", but in their culture, a man that only enjoys sex with other men (their definition of homosexual), is wrong. I am honestly not sure just how prevailent that is within the "middle east", but it happens.
|
@TheAntiElite, to be honest I don't actually know pretty much every game you mentioned. I was pretty young back in the SNES days, let alone anything before that. My first console was really the N64, and I would've been like 7-9 years old when I first started playing that! I've only played some of the "big hits" such as the Final Fantasy games, Chrono Trigger, etc.
@Devil, the idea of someone forcing themselves to be heterosexual when they are actually not is incredibly depressing to me. :( But if that's their decision in life, it's their decision.
For men drawn for the female gaze don't think Vallejo's Conan, think yaoi art or romance novel models.
This does not directly contradict what kma12t is saying. Just because it is not a direct inverse does not mean that it is not equivalent, it still fills the same function. ;)
lol my response would simply be: don't be a hypocrite. If you want your heroine to look like Jessica Alba in a barely clothed maiden outfit (that'd be my preference), hers can look like Channing Tatum in a loin cloth. Again, people need to just mellow out.
You miss a small problem. Ultimately games are created to make money.
So, sometimes a little hypocrisy is necessary.
There are no quantifiable statistics for this, but if we assume the demographics of gaming are changing to include more women couldn't we assume that the customer base (i.e. those who pay money for the products) are changing to a degree and the supplier should adjust to meet its customers wants?
On the contrary. By the logic that "games are created to make money" a game company should adjust to fulfill the wants of this expanding customer demographic.
This would make economic sense assuming the changes wouldn't turn off the existing majority of males enough to hurt sales.
This is the challenge. A company needs to find a balance between their existing customer base and the new growing demographic.
Something tells me a few more sausages in the party isn't going to stop players from picking up the next edition of PF or the newest AP.
Likely. However, this is the valid point that thejeff brought up. What attracts the "female gaze" may not be a simple inverse of what attracts the "male gaze."
|
I would strongly suggest you play valis again through older eyes- it was far more cheesecakey/aimed at the male audience of the time than you might be remembering.
And what exactly is wrong with companies that make hentai games? Remember, this is japan- the company that makes tomorrows hentai game is probably making a deep rpg this week and will be making a platformer next week. Look at the talent that is working on the game itself, noty the company
Srsly? I only played the one for SNES that made it overseas, so that probably wasn't actually a good introduction to the overall tone of the series.
Re: The hentai, I actually don't have a problem with it as an absolute. Hell, if appreciating sexy tiem was a crime I'd be on death row.
But the prevalence of rape in the medium really is offputting, to put it lightly. And from the look of things, it seemed like the victimization route was the direction the Valis franchise was going.
In contrast, the Pathfinder(more liek Pornfinder) art that got linked here seemed....I dunno. Healthier? Consensual for sure; everyone's clearly having a good time. Hell, maybe even tasteful.*
*Hypocrisy nod: Yeah, I have to admit that the "When you like it, it's smut. When I like it, it's erotica." trap is a very easy one to fall into. ;)
Also, Val/Imrijka 4ever&ever
|
|
Not picking on you, Mikaze, but do you have a problem with Shanoa?
Or Charlotte?
Mind, Charlotte is half of a Power Duo, so it's a case of 'choose your protagonist', but she still counts as a rather decent Castlevania protagonist, even if the method of powering her up is a pain and she has that fanservicey spin-taunt with pixel-jiggle.
Pff, no worries. I can go on about Castlevania all day. :)
I've actually got mixed feelings about Charlotte and Shanoa in relation to the Sonia Belmont thing.
On the one hand, I do like them. There are some characterization things I'd call a frustrating cliche I see a lot with female characters meant to be strong in a lot of Japanese media having to do with apparent emotionlessness, but that's probably a whole other ball of wax. But I do like those characters.
On the other hand, it took a long time for them to finally show up efter Sonia got booted from the continuity. That was a lot of time for those hard feelings to stew honestly, so when a playable female lead did finally show up in the series again, there were some high expectations.
And when they did finally show, we're still lacking a female Belmont badass(this may be a personal gripe) and they still play to the "boys are fighters, girls are mages" cliche. While Shanoa does whip out a lot of melee weaponry, it's all wrapped up in the flavor of magical conjurations and granted/stolen ability rather than practiced martial skill. I could put that complaint aside and still enjoy the game, but it still left me wanting for a basic Belmont-style heroine.
Complete with traditional terrible Belmont posture.
DAT HUNCH. The new sexy.
Also, Terra @#$% Yeah.
(also, and this is another hypocricy nod: But I actually liked the character design for Shanoa from Castlevania:Judgment more than the original. It just seemed to click better with her backstory. I feel the need to declare that this is the only thing I preferred from Judgment over the series proper, even if it had a good soundtrack)
((gb2DeathNote Judgment!Simon))
Also, Val/Imrijka 4ever&ever
I don't know. I think Imrijka could do better. Besides that would involve him breaking up with his true love. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't object to women character in scanty clothes if there's a reason for it - but how often is there a need? Did Lara Croft need breasts the size of watermelons to be the same character? Nope.
You know, I never really thought she looked all that great (and prefer her new character design), but I'm still baffled by this. Some women have large breasts. Do they need a "reason" for this? Is it somehow a bad thing that they have large breasts? What's wrong with including such women in videogames?
TL;DR Bigs boobs are fine. It becomes a problem when every character has them.
Well, diversity in boobage is fine, except in Australia, apparently. As I recall, they made a law that classified photos of A-cup breasts as child pornography. No wonder then that boob sizes increase, just to be on the safe side.
Video games, anime -- it's the same thing. Everything you see these days is made with Americans in mind. ESPECIALLY if you look at it and think it's sooooo Japanese, because that's what Americans want.
This is one of most gloriously jingoistic things I've read on the Internet, ever. Also, completely ignorant of the Japanese entertainment industries mindset.
Your second point is meaningless to what I said. Yes, I understand your point, but it still has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.The problem is not that heterosexual males find certain kinds of women attractive.Actually, it is. Two ways:
This is what is driving the Marketing based decisions about how female (and to a degree male) characters are "drawn" in games. Not all heterosexual men find the same "kinds" of women attractive (aka "Sexy is Not a Size.") Not quite. It has to do with a lack of diversity in female characters. (See Lilith's comment.)
Your first point is interesting as it draws a very specific distinction. It isn't that people find certain types attractive that is sexist... it's the actions that sometimes accompany that attraction that are sexist.That is the vital distinction. Without that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.
Finding someone attractive is not inherently sexist. Bad behavior based on that attraction can be. There is a very distinct difference.This leads back to my original point.
I desire "sexy, scanilty clad" female characters in my gaming entertainment.
Since I am a consumer and (probably) a representative of the largest percentage of the customer base.
I feel that I do have some rights as a customer. But what I don't want to do is throw the other consumer groups "under the bus" so to speak.
Lets define sexist in a useful way.
Sexist is useful as a term when applied to things that are meant to demean and discriminate against women.
Is it your goal to attach yourself to that definition?
Well, diversity in boobage is fine, except in Australia, apparently. As I recall, they made a law that classified photos of A-cup breasts as child pornography. No wonder then that boob sizes increase, just to be on the safe side.
LOL not quite, but pretty bloody close!
Simply put we had enormous knee-jerks from a few lobby groups who had concerns that even if it wasn't child porn, someone into child porn could consider it 'close enough', so they brought a lot of pressure to bear about it on the Govt, and in turn a LOT of censorship of media portaying anyone with an A cup. That includes photo's, cartoons, anything... drawing with crayons even. Someone got busted with 'reimagined' Simpsons cartoons and got done for Child Porn.
As a result, B cup or larger is the norm, so as to stay out of trouble.
That's insane.
Oh DM, as to your question about 'watermelons', the average US bra size is a 36C (hint - not small) and the average in the UK is up to a D/DD.
So large is the new normal.
Oh DM, as to your question about 'watermelons', the average US bra size is a 36C (hint - not small) and the average in the UK is up to a D/DD.
So large is the new normal.
But in the UK the cup sizes are not the same as the US, I believe.
A(US)=B(UK).
Which in it's own way is not good as it places an unreal expectation upon females to have larger chests (something that they can do nothing about).
Lets define sexist in a useful way.
Sexist is useful as a term when applied to things that are meant to demean and discriminate against women.
Is it your goal to attach yourself to that definition?
You might want to alter it slightly, lest you imply it's alright to discriminate & demean men without being sexist.
I hate to say it but I would prefer a girl like Dakota over Tifa...
Also IIRC the Average Bra Size for Missouri in the USA is up to a mid DD.
NOTE: I am just under a year older Dakota.
Still a rather 'noticeable volume' :p
Every girl I have known with a larger chest wanted a smaller one (clothes hang better, better for sport yada yada) and all the girls with smaller chests wanted a larger one.
With the exception of one ex who simply asserted that 'more than a handfull is a waste'.
I think it's a no win.
Us guys have our own oddball body issues as well, hence the rampant growth in steroid abuse in pursuit of getting 'ripped'.
I actually prefer my slightly heavy set frame...
And most women I know are evenly distributed between the Higher End and the Lower End...
Heck, I literally know a Lolita... It is hilarious.
|
|
The term sexism (as well as other "isms" like racism and such) is often used in sociological papers and other similar places to refer only to institutionalised discrimination from a group that has power to a group that is not in power. (White -> black; Men -> women; Heterosexuals -> homosexuals; etc.)
This means that, by this definition of the word sexism, there is no such thing as sexism against men. Discrimination against men DOES EXIST in this model, but it is not institutionalised discrimination by a group with power to a group with lesser power.
The fact that a lot of people use the term 'sexism' to refer to 'any discrimination based on gender' often causes friction and confusion with people who use it to refer to 'institutionalised discrimination against women by the power group (men)', and vice versa.
EDIT: <tangential_rant> And you know, despite the fact that the average cup size is going up, it is STILL incredibly difficult to find bras that are not in "standard" sizes. Cups above D and band sizes above certain limits are found pretty much only in speciality stores and cost ~$50 per piece. Imagine paying $50 per underwear you own! Arrrgh. </tangential_rant>
Is there not an institutional model in which men are the minority?
|
|
@DSXMachina, no, because men are the group with power in our society, at least as considered by these models (and when speaking about countries such as the US).
It's not exactly about being a minority (although typically speaking minority groups are those without power) however. Women aren't minorities for their gender, after all. It's about entrenched (institutionalised) power systems. Institutionalised power typically gives the "power" group an advantage over those who are not in that group. This may be anything from being badly perceived in social circles or job interviews, having your language and culture threatened or belittled or otherwise viewed as "lesser", to being in danger of physical harm.
For example, consider African American Vernacular English (AAVE). AAVE is a legitimate dialect of English, much the same as Australian English, Standard (Queen's) English, American English, etc. It follows all the same kinds of grammatical rules--just slightly different to General American English (GAE), which is the language of power. However AAVE is often considered to be a sign of lesser intelligence, and African Americans who speak AAVE typically face many challenges just because of their natively learned dialect. This is just one example of institutionalised privilege that white Americans who speak GAE have over black Americans who speak AAVE--the fact that their very language is perceived as lesser.
So, it's on a macro-scale. A male employee in a matriarchal company with few male employees, couldn't be a victim of sexism?
How about the/your other example, could a White man in Zimbabwe be the victim of racism? Or would it be impossible because of the Imperial overtones, and the use of language and implicit history?
|
|
DSXMachina, by the use of the term in the context I mentioned, no, that man would not be a victim of sexism, although he might be a victim of gender-based discrimination. (See the distinction?)
As for the white man in Zimbabwe, I profess to not being an expert in this area, but my gut feeling is that, as you said, the Imperial overtones and history would probably make "racism" not the correct term to use (although race-based discrimination might be a possibility). Typically this literature is considered from a Western point of view and doesn't apply nearly as neatly to other places every single time.
I'm also a linguist, not a sociologist, so I might not be quite on the mark with all this either. :P
Note, I'm just trying to explain how the term is used academically in the study of social justice, feminism, etc. Whether you agree or not with its use is irrelevant, it's just often important to know HOW it's used in order to follow some arguments that are made (such as Irontruth's).
It would be nice to have a clear definition of the term social justice.
IIRC there are Imperial and Situational Definitions. You referenced the Imperial what DSXM said is Situational.
|
|
Social justice is also a concept that is used to describe the movement towards a socially just world, i.e., the Global Justice Movement. In this context, social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality, and can be defined as "the way in which human rights are manifested in the everyday lives of people at every level of society".
There are so many different takes on social justice that anything more concrete than this is pretty much impossible. Religious views, feminism, humanism, socialism, human rights advocates of different sorts, various academics and philosophers and philosophies, all have different ideas on what constitutes social justice and how to best go about it.
Broadly speaking I'd say "social justice" is a desire for equality of opportunity and freedom from institutionalised oppression for all people.
I don't object to women character in scanty clothes if there's a reason for it - but how often is there a need? Did Lara Croft need breasts the size of watermelons to be the same character? Nope.You know, I never really thought she looked all that great (and prefer her new character design), but I'm still baffled by this. Some women have large breasts. Do they need a "reason" for this? Is it somehow a bad thing that they have large breasts? What's wrong with including such women in videogames?
TL;DR Bigs boobs are fine. It becomes a problem when every character has them.
Honestly, I went and looked on youtube for video of Lara Croft in the original Tomb Raider, because I didn't remember her being that big. After seeing the video, yup, not close to watermelons. I'm guessing if someone thought they were, they should probably visit the local produce stand a little more often. Now honeydew, sure I'd buy that.
That's fine, just making sure. Thus sexism is a closed acadmeic term.
Thank you very much for taking the time to explain/discuss this.
I just find some of these discussions propagate a diversive, me Vs. them philsophy. Where we take people as homogenous groups rather than individuals, this of course creates a certain tension and defensiveness.
Which of course, bringing this back on topic, is the problem. People aren't homogenous and there needs to be a greater diversity of characters in entertainment. Ensuring that there isn't only cliches is tricky, especially when people generally like to feel safe in their opinions/beliefs.
If sexism is macro-level power control, then it doesn't appear that you could legitimately say a person is sexist or that even a company is sexist.
Original Lara Croft: Canteloupes.
New Lara Croft is my Preference of them all.