things that don’t break white male gamer’s immersion: dragons, magic, made up metals, impossibly large weapons, eating 50 potatoes while in combat, riding a horse up a 90 degree cliff
things that break white male gamer’s immersion: realistic armor for women, black people
Also, transgender people.
This time reblogging from @big-wired, who was smart enough to convert it from garbage chat post format into a text one AND made a valuable addition to the list of things that (cis) white males can’t handle in games (and other media) because ‘historical accuracy’… in largely fantasy worlds.
Though we would be here all day if we were to list ALL the common and perfectly normal (often historically accurate) kinds of things and people that “ruin” the immersion of a Status Quo Warrior gamer dudebro.
Fantasy does NOT have to follow real world rules. Fantasy does NOT have to relate to some real world event, country, concept, law, or history. Fantasy does NOT have to mirror any particular time period or country, even if you’re basing your world on a real world one. There is NO SUCH THING as “historical accuracy” in fantasy as it relates to the real world.
THE ONLY THING Fantasy has to do to be believable is follow the established rules OF ITS OWN WORLD. Fantasy can literally be anything you imagine it to be.
If your fantasy world excludes people of color or those belonging to the LGBT+ community, if it’s grossly misogynistic and white cis-male centric, that’s because YOU made it that way. Stop blaming “historical accuracy” or “believability”. It’s not the genre; it’s YOU.
@bikiniarmorbattledamage I believe this is highly relevant to the rhetoric you guys often combat.
Indeed all of this relates to all the stuff we talk about on BABD.
In the same vein, “that’s how this particular fantasy setting works” is just as bad excuse for gross in-story stuff as “that’s the way real world was once”.
Ultimately, no matter the justifying rhetoric, it’s the creative decisions that will be under scrutiny, not some superficially “objective” rules regarding a fictional setting.
The cool thing (that people sometimes forget), is that a fantasy setting, rather than being historical fiction (somehow), instead illuminates the values of its creator. Sure, it feels bad to be called out, but it really does make you a better creator if you ask yourself: why are all my characters light skinned/skinny/cis/straight/male/etc?
Sometimes, there are good reasons, like if the story is about (to use a basic example) race-based oppression, and all the characters are on one side of that. But sometimes the reason is just “cause that’s what i like.” And honestly, besides being a bad reason, that’s just boring.
If I hadn’t gone through this process myself, I wouldn’t have my favorite Pathfinder OCs! Just sayin’.
First of all, this is not an argument that women’s armor in media should be the same as dudes’ armor. Most main characters are supposed to look attractive most of the time they’re on screen; whether because of social or biological conditioning, the bulk added by armor on dudes’ chests and shoulders hottens them up. Dudes in practical armor still meet the hotness standards they’re held to. Women, however, genuinely are trickier to armor up without losing the hourglass figure or lean lines expected by their hotness standards. That’s a thing. Whatever you may think of it, it’s a thing. And it’s not like anybody ever gets a closed-face helmet.
TRICKIER. Not impossible, and I’m looking at you, director Patty Jenkins and costume designer Lindy Hemmings of Wonder Woman.
Honestly, I would have just let this bullshit armor go as typical Hollywood bullshit armyr, but Jenkins made the mistake of arguing, “To me, they shouldn’t be dressed in armor like men […]It should be different. It should be authentic and real – and appealing to women.”
Authentic and real, my functional-armored ass, and yes, I have armor for swordfighting, and yes, it’s damn well functional because I have a thing about avoiding cracked ribs and collarbones. They hurt.
Jenkins is open about the heels and leg exposure being wish-fulfillment, which is stupid, because you can show off muscle without showing flesh (*cough* Superman *cough* Batman *cough* every Superdude costume ever), but fine, we’ll let it go. What I will NOT let go is the belief that this armor is functional, or that you can’t have sexy AF armor that shows no skin whatsoever, AND is entirely functional.
But, Scarlet Librarian, What Exactly is “Functional?”
Let’s be clear on this before we jump in. There’s a lot of bits armor needs to protect, but for the purposes of this discussion, we’ll mostly be talking about breastplates, the biggest offender of Stupid Armyr Bullshit. The point of a breastplate is to protect the squishy bits like the heart, liver, lungs…do you know how high up in the torso lungs go?
THAT HIGH. The lungs are higher up than the bust stops, which is why a functional breastplate does not STOP at the breasts, it needs to cover the full torso in order to prevent getting stabbed or shot in the lung, which is frequently lethal, by the way, almost certainly in a premodern context. Mail usually doesn’t stop an arrow, although it can reduce the damage done. That’s what plate is for.
Any breastplate that does not protect the lungs is completely non-functional, and will not be discussed here. We shall pretend these abominations simply do not exist.
Also important, although less vital, are the collarbones, which I trust you can find yourself. They’re right where many a sword swing tends to go, and yes, a piece of rebar swung at full-strength into your collarbone is going to crack if not snap it, and even mail is only going to help so much. If you are very, very lucky, you will be so hopped up on adrenaline you won’t register the pain until after it’s no longer necessary to use both your arms to protect yourself. You’ll still lose strength and mobility in that arm, and if you’re very, very unlucky, there will be nerve damage rendering it useless.
Stupid Hollywood Bullshit, But Demonstrates That a Completely Armored Woman Can Still Be Sexy AF
As many people have pointed out already, cleavaged breastplates (as seen on Gal Gadot and co. as Wondwoman), which make a dip or crease in between the boobs, are not actually functional. They’ll direct a strike, and all the force behind it, directly into the sternum, rather than deflecting it like an outwardly curved shape. As such, the following are not entirely functional, but still cover everything without rendering the wearer a shapeless hag.
Sonja (Rhona Mitra), Underworld: Rise of the Lycans. She is awarded compensation points for her excellent gauntlets, and especially for the heavy gorget protecting her neck.
Lady Sif (Jaime Alexander) from Thor. I don’t like this aesthetically, personally, and the whole “oh, we’ll just put some stupidly-light mail over her upper chest and that will take care of the GAPING OPENING at her upper chest” is bullshit, as is having mail directly over skin with no fabric or leather beneath (you’ll have mail shaped bruises and abrasions if you take a hit there, and it’s just uncomfortable even if you don’t). However, once more, completely covered (the mail at least covers the skin), still shapely.
Isabelle (Eleanor Tomlinson) in Jack and the Giant Slayer. The cleavage here isn’t excessive (especially in comparison to Gadot and co., whose boobs are damn near mummified), but it’s enough I can’t put it in the other categories. I also have maneuverability concerns–the pauldrons are attached at the shoulder weirdly, and the integrated turtleneck, as opposed to a separate gorget, could be problems. How the hell do you get into this thing, anyway? Body armor is typically a breastplate, which is attached to a matching backplate if you can afford it, not a bronze tunic thing. Seriously, where are the openings?
Fantasy, But Included For the Sake of Argument
Stuff that, while not entirely functional, covers everything without making the wearer look a shapeless hag, or whatever these costumers are so afraid of.
Emily Blunt as Freya in The Huntsman: WInter’s War. Again, no neck armor, and the neckline itself is a little low for my liking, but most of her torso is covered, along with her arms, which have both pauldrons on the shoulders and bazuband-style vambraces protecting her forearms and elbows. The scales are really small, which won’t protect her as well as more historically-based lamellar (see below) would, but this is is probably as good as mail, and the point remains that she’s completely covered in metal and still looks damn good. It’s also worth mentioning Freya is a scary-ass winter witch with guards around her RIDING A GODDAMN POLAR BEAR, so while this is fantasy armyr, it doesn’t have to be functional so much as look badass and sexy, and it’s doing just fine with that. While still being more functional than a lot of hands-on-Warrior-Chick armor is.
For sale by Armstreet, this is…okay, this is a really weird bastard child of late 16th-17th century stays and someone’s perception of Greek armor. I wouldn’t want to wear this in any actual combat situation, since mobility is pretty restricted, and my god, please wear some pants and something with sleeves or that shit is going to chafe, but again–Female torso, fully covered, even her neck, still a very feminine look. (And it comes with a helmet!)
Also from Armstreet. She has been granted, of all shocking things, clothing under her armor! Heavens to betsy. I’m not a huge fan of those pauldrons and the way they fit, and for this to be a wholly protective kit she’d need a chainmail coif (like a hood that also pools around the neck and upper shoulders), but we’ll roll with it, especially as the coif would cover the armor that it’s advertising here.
Really, Not Bad
Virginia Hankins, stuntie and performer at the Southern California Renaissance Pleasure Faire (and who thought that was a good name for it?). This is clearly costume armor that’s never been hit in its life (she doesn’t joust, as we’ll get to later, but rides around hitting targets, which, yes, is very difficult, and how the hell she does it with that hair I’ll never know, because mine would be trying to strangle the horse, but doesn’t require impact-resistant armor). It’s too tight-fitting to be entirely functional, because the idea here is to look badass and feminine on horseback from a distance. Fully covered. Still clearly woman-shaped.
Mia Wasikowska as Alice in Alice in Wonderland, really weird pseudo-mail sleeves that the vambrace bits are just sort of riveted to, but whatever, quite reasonable pauldrons, and even gauntlets!
Kristen Stewart as Snow White in Snow White and the Huntsman, with surprisingly better-looking mail. It’s less girly, both in the shorter and less fluffalous skirts over the hips and thighs, the embellishments, and the overall design, but SW and the H has a weird attempt to be gritty and realistically semi-medieval thing going on (which is hilarious on multiple levels). Honestly, they may have been going for borrowed dude armor here, but, again, completely covered, still looks fine. (Okay, except for that hair, nobody ever looks good with their hair scraped back directly from their forehead. That has nothing to do with the armor, the armor is fine.)
Gwendoline Christie as Brienne of Tarth in Game of Thrones, in a padded gambeson, mail (still stupidly light, but mail), and even a helmet! The lobstered plates coming down over her hips are too short and too narrow, but she does have something. She can’t really be described as “shapely,” but she’s not supposed to, the point is she’s mistaken for a guy with her face hidden in the helmet anyway (nor is Gwendoline Christie the most hourglassy lady to begin with). The design of the breastplate could very easily be altered to taper in more at the waist as well if you really wanted to girl up the look. (Also included because a number of fighting female friends would beat the crap out of me if I didn’t, this armor is BELOVED among them. And it really is quite schnazzy.)
Miranda Otto as Éowyn in The Lord of the Rings, also disguised as a dude, and it’s hard to get a cuirass like this to fit really snugly when it’s over accurately-sized mail. So while she doesn’t look all that girly here, she’s not supposed to, and again, like Brienne’s, this armor could be feminized without losing functionality. (There is, however, NO excuse for this hair being all over the place, NO excuse whatsoever. Tolkien SPECIFICALLY refers to her hair being braided, besides the fact that you do not, ever, want long hair around mail, because it WILL get caught and it WILL hurt; long hair worn down on your neck is really hot and sweaty and gross if you stick a metal pot on it and then run about in a very active manner; and two words, ladies and gentleman: HELMET HAIR. It’s real. It’s sweaty. It’s gross. It’s at least a little tangly even if you braid your hair, which is what very nearly every long-haired (and by that I mean even to the shoulders) woman I know who sticks her head in a metal pot and then bounces around excitedly while wearing heavy, warm protective clothing does, because HELMET HAIR. Would you play hockey, or roller-derby, or any other active sport that requires a helmet, with waist-length hair left to its own devices? I’m not even talking about how it looks when you don’t have a professional team making sure you look rugged and a bit tousled but, not, you know, sweaty and gross and afflicted by HELMET HAIR. This is just about how nasty it feels.)
Nicole Leigh Verdin in Shroud. While cinched in at the waist to an impractical degree, it still follows the lines of the late-fifteenth-century Gothic armor I promise I’m getting to, so it still keeps EVERYTHING COVERED.
Valentina Cervi as Caterina Sforza Riario in Borgia, set in the 1490s. See what I mean about Brienne’s thigh protection?
Gina McKee as Caterina Sforza Riario in The Borgias, yup, still 1490s. Both the pauldrons and helmet are weird, but the breastplate is decent, and that’s the main culprit in bullshit female armor.
Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth I in Elizabeth: The Golden Age. This armor is more than a century too early, but put her in period-accurate armor and you get…
Helen Mirren in Elizabeth I, an HBO minseries. The costuming in this miniseries is damn near reproduction quality, and I’m happy they went with an accurate peascod shaped breastplate because I’m an accuracy geek, but nobody has ever looked good in either a peascod doublet or a breastplate shaped like one, which is why the costume team on the appealing-to-a-broad-audience-that-just-wants-to-see-Cate-Blanchett-Look-Hot-In-Armor Golden Age went all Gothic instead.
So this is actually a gaming mini made by Thunderbolt Mountain, designed to be 12th century Rus, including lamellar (interlocking plates) armor over mail. This is actually pretty accurate except for some weird draping in the mail coif over her neck and head (and the fact that there’s nothing between the mail and her hair–DO NOT LET MAIL TOUCH YOUR HAIR, you will be very, very sad and possibly bald). Lamellar, which is I what I wear for several practical reasons not all to do with the Girl Body Thing, is awesome for female armor because of how easy it is to adjust the fit as you make it, and because of its flexibility once it’s made. My quibble here is actually that she only has a sword belt, not another belt cinched in snug around the natural waist, because that makes a HUGE difference for both men and women by getting some of the weight to settle on the hips rather than hanging off the shoulders and back.
Actual Damn Armor
Armorer Jeff Wasson’s wife Stacey, wearing early- to mid-15th century armor. As armor. Because she’s not an actress or performer, she’s a legit jouster (this is why she has the larger pauldron on the left shoulder, where she’s most likely to get hit).
Here she lands a hit on her opponent. This group used balsa-wood inserts in the lances that are designed to break on impact, the idea being that you get hit but don’t, you know, die (this is historically accurate; tournament lances were designed to break themselves, not break people). That being said, you’re still being hit with a bigass stick by someone on a galloping horse; I would bet money she’s not only taken hits in that armor but also fallen off the horse in it.
(Thomas Swynborn Dating 1412 Church of St Peter and St Paul, Little Horkesley, Essex, England.) What dude armor from the same period as Wasson’s is based on. The hourglass was in for guys as well as women, to the point that men’s clothing heavily padded the shoulders and chest to exaggerate it, which is what makes the 15th century a great period to base feminine-looking female armor on.
Other examples of extant (and thus made for dudes) armor that would make excellent inspiration for functional and feminine armor, JUST SAYING, PROFESSIONAL COSTUMERS, is from the late 15th century, google “gothic armor” for more:
15th c. German,courtesy of Dr. Andrea Carloni (Rimini, Italy), AAF ID.
1470 Leeds, UK, Royal Armouries, II.168, composite armour “alla tedesca”, breastplate formerly in Churburg, Milano and Brescia Images courtesy of Igor Zeler*, AAF ID.
1484 – Vienna, Austria, Kunsthistorisches Museum, A 62, armour for Archduke Sigismund von Tirol, by Lorenz Helmschmid, Augsburg Front image courtesy of Blaz Berlec, AAF ID.
No attribution, but typical of late 15th c. and holy shit, gorgeous. Look at me, I’m a pretty, pretty badass!
Armor: Can be feminine, functional, and hot at the same damn time, without showing any skin. And while I’m of the opinion that armor needs to look functional for the wearer to be badass, and that wearing a metal swimsuit makes the wearer look ridiculous and neither badass nor sexy, I recognize that when catering to mainstream audience, female characters frequently need to look sexy as well as functionally badass. That’s the reality in Hollywood right now, like it or not. I do NOT recognize that skin is necessary for this, or that bullshit fantasy armyr is, because holy shit, how hot would Lady Badass look in some of that Gothic stuff? SMOKING hot. All the more so because it would be completely functional.
Just saying, costume designers and denizens of the internet. Just saying.
When creating fictional female armor, the designers can go literally anywhere on the scale between “Stupid Hollywood Bullshit” and “Actual Damn Armor” and not worry about the character losing her femininity or sex appeal, if they do their job right. All without showing an inch of randomly exposed skin.
Things like flaunted cleavage or suspiciously uncovered thighs are a dead giveaway that whoever approved the costume just opted for “sexy” shortcuts. They really highlight that the sole priority was to convey generic “hotness”.
While we here at BABD believe that woman characters should be more than just eye-candy (and dead, from the way they’re usually dressed), we should probably remind people that women can also look hot while also being protected in battle. Most of the examples here are plate armor, but trust me, it’s possible with other types of armor as well.
So if, for example, a character is out there fighting, but she also uses her Womanly Wiles to get the Men to her side, she can, like… wear armor… and do that also?
And honestly, even if armor was just fundamentally un-hot (would that be “cold” then?), she probably has more than one outfit. It’s just that maybe you shouldn’t wear your little black dress to beat some dudes up. Unless you’re Superman, he’s got literally 0 excuse.
“One might think this is because women didn’t serve combat roles – which isn’t true – but according to former DICE coder Amandine Coget, it’s because the project leads thought boys wouldn’t find it believable.
…Coget adds that DICE made several decisions for Battlefield 1
which have nothing to do with historical realism – including how tanks
function or the lethality rates of early parachutes – but female
soldiers still wouldn’t appear in multiplayer.”
Heavy sighing. (h/t @cypheroftyr via Twitter.)
What’s a worse argument to not have women in your combat-heavy game than “they’re too hard to animate”? “Historically, female warriors are unrealistic”, of course! And how to add to the injury? Insult your intended demographic by saying THEY are the one who won’t believe it!
It’s not like games have potential to educate and widen the player’s horizons, right?
Considering the developer is so totally concerned with “realism” (as understood by pubescent boys), @pointandclickbait has a great suggestion to what historically accurate thing should be included instead of soldier women:
This week in throwback: Remember how two years ago Battlefield 1 developers insulted their intended audience by basically claiming that boys are too stupid and sexist to accept women in a World War I game? Well who would have thought it, they were right!
Recently released WWII-based sequel, Battlefield 5 (yeah, I’m not even trying to understand the numeration there) HAS female soldiers in it and the dudebros apparently cry “historical revisionism!” at that.
Because women on the frontlines of World War II are definitely the most unbelievable part of a game that lets you die and respawn multiple times while reenacting real historical battles. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Y’know, even if there wasn’t a single woman in all of history who had fought in war or a single example of real, historical female armor, there would be no problem in pointing out fantasy armor is unrealistic because the complaint is not based on what women DID wear but what women WOULD wear.
In fiction, armor is a costume, and a costume is a statement about the wearer. It is the creator’s opportunity to tell the audience about the world, the society the wearer is from and the wearer of themselves.
If a creator’s most compelling message they can think of is “she’s got sexy bits” then not only is every female character going to be yet another addition to an already over saturated nonsensical trope.
However, if you decide to actually communicate some things like… what the armor is made from, what it’s supposed to protect against, what’s happened to it since it was made, or how the wearer would decorate it: you open up the doors to infinite possibilities.
Some of which may be heavily influenced and inspired by history.
That post about “attractive armor without bikini” actually left me wondering: why would you actually want an attractive armor? Sure, everyone loves an aesthethically pleasing armor, but we can’t just forget that armor is mostly made to be, well, intimidating. It’s supposed to make people both safer in combat and also more powerful. Not having to battle – because you look so threatening or even downright unbeatable – is some 40% of the purpose of an armor piece. Why does it need to be attractive?
Regarding: this post
That’s actually a very good question! In short, the answer is (and better get your body ready for that)…
Believe it or not, some of the Female Armor Rhetoric Bingo arguments hold up under specific circumstances.
But let’s set some things straight first: armor is done primarily to be protective.
It sure helps if the design makes the wearer intimidating enough to make the opponents surrender right away, but at its core it was invented as a physical barrier between a person and whatever or whoever threatens their life or health.
That doesn’t mean there isn’t a place for decorative armor in the history. Highly ornamented muscle cuirass (male equivalent of boobplate) was designed to impress and worn by high-standing officers during non-battle special occasions, like parades.
That said, in the world of fiction the distinction between purely functional and decorative armor is not necessary. It’s not real, and unless the setting of choice is gritty life-like naturalism, the armor (and any other design) needs just to be believable, not realistic. We commented on it before.
This is where those two bingo squares come in. Fictional worlds, especially the more fantastic ones, can be stylized, sometimes even to ridiculous degree, as long as all of the world is consistent with its level of stylization.
That’s why it’s not inherently bad to have people fight monsters in G-strings… It just needs to all make sense within its own narrative and preferably not be gendered (which basically never happens).
Hope that answers it.
Sometimes we make comments about how attractive a person looks in armor, because a lot of the time, their design is going for that. Unfortunately, the shorthand for that tends to be More Skin, High Heels, the usual offenders. But even if a character is designed to be attractive, that can be done without resorting to tired sexist tropes. And so we bring attention to it sometimes, when it’s done well.
Historically speaking, a lot of European plate armor was quite ugly from a design perspective, actually.
Look at that silhouette, the tiny shapes everywhere, that scarecrow head-adjacent helmet, those duck feet. Beautiful.
Compare that to any armor in Game of Thrones, which is functional, but is just so much nicer to look at.
As critics of art and design, we care more about seeing women’s designs being consistent (and good) in their universe, rather than having 100% Organic Free Range Realism. (Don’t worry though, we will continue to feature actual ladies in actual armor for positive examples.)