Tag: commentary

Posted on

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

adjectiveverb:

marshmallowknight:

bunrobot:

marshmallowknight:

“weaponized femininity” more like “how to cater to the male gaze and Western beauty ideals while acting like it’s Totally Subversive”

image

bASICALLy

[Comic source: Kate Beaton]

Apparently, according to all the people who were upset that we dared to call out Hideo Kojima and implied that his use of Quiet in promotional materials was objectification and pandering, you can also act like it’s totally subversive by writing a long back story for the character.

It doesn’t have to be, or really their own back story, or one that the majority of players will even experience – just so long as there’s something there to claim that you “totally humanized and made worthwhile” the character who’s boobs appear in every promo post.

Then it becomes a deep commentary of the “reality of women in these situations”… there being so many women who run around in bikinis on battlefields in reality.

– wincenworks

Since “weaponized femininity” got namedropped in that post we reblogged this weekend, let’s maybe bring it back today. And wonder once again how exactly does displaying a conventionally attractive heroine’s

tits and supermodel strut  equally as much as her

weapons and battle prowess count automatically as female empowerment and not thinly-veiled pandering to cishet men.

And also let’s remember another, more evocative name which Miss Represenation documentary gave to this Totally Subversive™

trope – The Fighting F*cktoy: 

image
image

~Ozzie

Posted on

It’s been some time since last we visited @pointandclickbait​ to binge on some quality, totally serious game journalism.

Since then, they touched upon such important issues to us as: 

Also good to announce: Point and Clickbait launched a Kickstarter to publish print version of their best 2016 articles! 

image

If you’re interested in quality game  journalism in print form (or PDF, because Australia Post’s shipping costs are intimidating), there’s a week before the campaign closes.

~Ozzie

Posted on

darkstar112:

marzipanandminutiae:

brinigi:

overlypolitebisexual:

overlypolitebisexual:

“why can’t female heroes kick arse in heels” because it’s not practical and will literally snap your damn ankle you can scream weaponised femininity all you want but first off, you need to admit that they’re not an almighty symbol of empowerment, and secondly that if you do a job with a lot of physical activity in heels you’re risking your own safety. all these women fighting in heels on tv are going to end up seriously injuring themselves. 

weaponised femininity is a concept made up in an attempt to get us to embrace the industries created to hold us back/profit from our insecurities so that we can continue to fit into the male expectation of what a woman should be and not question why we are forced to spend thousands on our appearance every year

just a small anecdote. I had a friend who worked in theater; she was the stage manager and an actress came to her in tears one day because the director absolutely refused to let her do a choreographed fight scene in less than 3 inch heels because “they’re platforms so you’ll be okay.” My friend, who is a woman’s size 10, brought her own heels in the next day and DEMANDED the director put them on and try the choreography before the actress did it. He finally agreed to change it, without putting the heels on.

so like I know you might think of “all those women on tv fighting in heels” as fictional woman who WOULD hurt themselves in real life, but its fiction so its okay…except those women are portrayed by real actresses who are actually fighting in actual heels, being directed by dudes who have never worn a pair of heels in their lives, alongside men who aren’t expected to constantly wear things that make their stunts 2x more dangerous than they have to be. Just a thought.

Men take “let’s see feminine women being badass” to mean “let’s see women impractically focused on their appearance in combat situations.“

Also, as a side note, the things we consider “masculine” usually are just the things that are practical and comfortable for a situation. Usually when when we say a female character is “feminine, but able to kick ass”, specifically in reference to costume design, we actually mean “there are some very impractical elements in this design (read: wonder woman and valkyrie), but her boobs aren’t on full display and she’s not wearing stilettos”. The idea that practical and appropriate clothing for dangerous or physically demanding situations is inherently masculine really has to go, because it is all kinds of fucked up.

Some really neat commentary on the absurdity of high heels as battle footwear, on the pretense that “weaponized femininity” excuses them and on the double standard that is their source. 

It’s always morbidly fascinating to observe the implication that some things in character and costume design (flowy hair, skimpy clothes,

uncomfortable

shoes etc.) are assumed to be inherently feminine, therefore mandatory for women in fiction, no matter the context. 
And that female characters who don’t comply to them to some degree are automatically “tomboys” or “rebels” or cheaply-achieved “good” female representation.

~Ozzie

related: This very long explanation of why high heels + combat =/= success | Why stuntwomen are in more danger than men

h/t: @filipfatalattractionrblog 

Posted on

darkstar112:

marzipanandminutiae:

brinigi:

overlypolitebisexual:

overlypolitebisexual:

“why can’t female heroes kick arse in heels” because it’s not practical and will literally snap your damn ankle you can scream weaponised femininity all you want but first off, you need to admit that they’re not an almighty symbol of empowerment, and secondly that if you do a job with a lot of physical activity in heels you’re risking your own safety. all these women fighting in heels on tv are going to end up seriously injuring themselves. 

weaponised femininity is a concept made up in an attempt to get us to embrace the industries created to hold us back/profit from our insecurities so that we can continue to fit into the male expectation of what a woman should be and not question why we are forced to spend thousands on our appearance every year

just a small anecdote. I had a friend who worked in theater; she was the stage manager and an actress came to her in tears one day because the director absolutely refused to let her do a choreographed fight scene in less than 3 inch heels because “they’re platforms so you’ll be okay.” My friend, who is a woman’s size 10, brought her own heels in the next day and DEMANDED the director put them on and try the choreography before the actress did it. He finally agreed to change it, without putting the heels on.

so like I know you might think of “all those women on tv fighting in heels” as fictional woman who WOULD hurt themselves in real life, but its fiction so its okay…except those women are portrayed by real actresses who are actually fighting in actual heels, being directed by dudes who have never worn a pair of heels in their lives, alongside men who aren’t expected to constantly wear things that make their stunts 2x more dangerous than they have to be. Just a thought.

Men take “let’s see feminine women being badass” to mean “let’s see women impractically focused on their appearance in combat situations.“

Also, as a side note, the things we consider “masculine” usually are just the things that are practical and comfortable for a situation. Usually when when we say a female character is “feminine, but able to kick ass”, specifically in reference to costume design, we actually mean “there are some very impractical elements in this design (read: wonder woman and valkyrie), but her boobs aren’t on full display and she’s not wearing stilettos”. The idea that practical and appropriate clothing for dangerous or physically demanding situations is inherently masculine really has to go, because it is all kinds of fucked up.

Some really neat commentary on the absurdity of high heels as battle footwear, on the pretense that “weaponized femininity” excuses them and on the double standard that is their source. 

It’s always morbidly fascinating to observe the implication that some things in character and costume design (flowy hair, skimpy clothes,

uncomfortable

shoes etc.) are assumed to be inherently feminine, therefore mandatory for women in fiction, no matter the context. 
And that female characters who don’t comply to them to some degree are automatically “tomboys” or “rebels” or cheaply-achieved “good” female representation.

~Ozzie

related: This very long explanation of why high heels + combat =/= success | Why stuntwomen are in more danger than men

h/t: @filipfatalattractionrblog 

Posted on

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

pixelcut:

WOOO I did a redesign of this hot monstrosity. The screen shots used in this post were provided by doctorsanity, who submitted them to bikiniarmorbattledamage

Look, I’ve been employed as a designer for two years now, and maybe that’s not that long; I’m at least sure I don’t have the same kind of industry experience that the designers in charge of this train wreck probably do, but I do know one thing: 

Design that fails to communicate its intended message is bad design. 

It is, in my opinion, the chore element that separates what we do from Fine Art – fine art is a personal expression. Someone can argue with the conclusions that you came to in fine art but ultimately, it’s your territory, your message, your composition, your voice, your story.

When you’re a hired designer, everything changes. It’s their story, their character, their message, their voice.

Putting aside the obvious pandering and intent to profit off of misogynistic ideals in female video game characters for just an instant, let’s talk about Charlotte.

Charlotte [evidently, from what I’ve admittedly heard through the grapevine; this game is not yet out in my country] uses a masquerade of charm and innocence to seduce men for their wealth. When I heard this, I was shocked, because from the moment I saw her outfit, she never looked like someone I could trust.

If she’s supposed to look demure, make her look demure, goddammit. You shouldn’t need a greenhorn like me to tell you these things. Learn to treat your female characters with more respect.

Awesome redesign accompanied by an awesome writeup, thank you, pixelcut!

One more thing I’d add about the difference between design (hired or not) and fine art, is that design is supposed to serve the same purpose for everyone who sees it. To communicate an intended message, as pixelcut puts it.

The problem with how Charlotte looks basically boils down to the whole issue our blog concerns: that a lot of female character designs, particularly female warrior costumes, do not tell us who we’re dealing with. Lingerie models, maybe, but not warriors, especially not if male characters of the same or similar class establish a completely different aesthetic.

~Ozzie

Speaking of communicating a character’s backstory and personality via original design, let’s again celebrate this awesome fanmade Charlotte fix that tells us all she would want us to know about her… instead of being just a straight-up bikini armor

~Ozzie