Guild Wars 2

Daecollo.9578:

Its not a female, its just a machine.

It does not resemble a woman in any way shape or form, most woman are not even shaped that way.

It is not a woman, therefore its not sexist. I would be offended if you think its a woman.

Its just a game, its not even a woman. IT IS A ROBOT

Yes, it’s only a robot….
Keep telling yourself that. No matter how sexist the depiction is, it’s only a machine.

So the objectifying and stereotyping of certain people is just fine, but criticising such portrayals is troublemaking? Yep, nothing new there, sadly, but that does not make attitudes like this any less problematic.

I see no objectifying or stereotyping in Guild Wars 2 that would offend anyone. I do however find problem with the people who react in the manner you seem to be reacting. If you or anyone truly believes there such going on in the game instead of posting on the forums, which will cause trouble because differing opinion on the internet nearly always leads to throwing insults at one another, contact Anet directly and inform them of your concern. If they feel you have a case they may very well change it to be less offensive. If not they may actually give you the reasoning behind the decision. But making a thread on a forum or even posting comments on youtube has only hurt these causes. I can’t tell you how many times I seen someone make a well thought argument on youtube, I know probably unbelievable, only to be undermined by someone who is on their side but reacts like they just escape from the asylum.

The watchknights are bloody awful and a complete disgrace. They could have been designed as icons of human culture, with symbols of the gods, or using symbology from the royal crest or whatever. Hell, they could have had touches of stylized “femininity” and still looked decent and fit to actually fight. But no. Naked metal women with detailed nipples and high heels. Lowest common denominator on the same level as trashy comic book covers.

Yet there will still be people who will find reason to complain and whine about it. I’m starting to think maybe we should ban causes from the forums since they all ultimately degrade into pointless wars where word twisting is taken to the extreme.

@Bovinity.8610: I think the day society doesn’t freak out is the day the earth was finally destroyed by a catastrophe. It seems this behavior will remain with humanity till extinction.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

So the objectifying and stereotyping of certain people is just fine, but criticising such portrayals is troublemaking? Yep, nothing new there, sadly, but that does not make attitudes like this any less problematic.

I see no objectifying or stereotyping in Guild Wars 2 that would offend anyone. I do however find problem with the people who react in the manner you seem to be reacting. If you or anyone truly believes there such going on in the game instead of posting on the forums, which will cause trouble because differing opinion on the internet nearly always leads to throwing insults at one another, contact Anet directly and inform them of your concern. If they feel you have a case they may very well change it to be less offensive. If not they may actually give you the reasoning behind the decision. But making a thread on a forum or even posting comments on youtube has only hurt these causes. I can’t tell you how many times I seen someone make a well thought argument on youtube, I know probably unbelievable, only to be undermined by someone who is on their side but reacts like they just escape from the asylum.

The watchknights are bloody awful and a complete disgrace. They could have been designed as icons of human culture, with symbols of the gods, or using symbology from the royal crest or whatever. Hell, they could have had touches of stylized “femininity” and still looked decent and fit to actually fight. But no. Naked metal women with detailed nipples and high heels. Lowest common denominator on the same level as trashy comic book covers.

Yet there will still be people who will find reason to complain and whine about it. I’m starting to think maybe we should ban causes from the forums since they all ultimately degrade into pointless wars where word twisting is taken to the extreme.

@Bovinity.8610: I think the day society doesn’t freak out is the day the earth was finally destroyed by a catastrophe. It seems this behavior will remain with humanity till extinction.

You are not the one who gets to decide what’s offensive to some people. And it’s not even about that, no one is saying “I am personally upset at this and I demand Anet consider my feels,” it’s about the detrimental impact to society caused by the overuse of sexist depictions of femininity.

But you’re not interested in having that discussion, you want people to shut up and be quiet and not bother anyone about it, because you’re fine with the status quo. You like the way things are and the fact that a few fussy women and men get uppity and make noises about things is what really grinds your gears. So your stance is “Sexism is fine as long as I’m ok with it. Bringing it up and talking about it is far worse.”

Bovinity.8610:

Oh hey, this is still going.

One day our society will get over “OMG BOOBS” I hope.

I also hope that one day all you great crusaders will focus on a topic of actual merit, instead of “OMG BOOBS”.

But I know “OMG BOOBS” is an easy target. The low-hanging fruit. Easy to scandalize, easy to sensationalize, not too hard to think about, not too many details. Just find some boobs, any boobs, anywhere, point at them and freak out.

I’m looking forward to the community’s reaction when Anet brings out models with massive pricks.

I’m looking forward to the community’s reaction when Anet brings out models with massive pricks.

Same reaction I have now when I see bare-chested steroid-freaks with more muscle mass than a rhino.

It’s the art style of the game. If at some point I decide I don’t like it, it’s just time to move on.

I can personally see both sides of this argument. To some extend I actually like the designs of the Watchknight. Very similar to Metropolis, and other classic scifi robot designs. I can see here the team got their inspiration.

However, the gigantic bosom, implied nipples (or aureola if you wish), and huge booty, I noticed right away. I’ve had long discussions about the depiction of women in video games before, and it would be pointless to make this another iteration of that same discussion (which involved lots of people calling others a feminist along with other nasty remarks).

On the whole, GW2 does a good job at depicting both men and women equally and respectfully. But there are some exceptions, and they kind of taint the MMO fantasy genre. Blatant sexualized depictions of female robots seems like a bit of a step backward to me.

If some female gamers feel bothered by that, they are entirely right to feel that way.

Funny thing, and I realized it when watching something on animals this morning . . .

. . . them having high heels isn’t so much a problem if the legs and feet are designed to make use of the posture. They benefit from not having the same . . . mechanical issues . . . as humans would with high heels. What it could mean, theoretically, is they have a much more forceful “lunge” type motion.

Just a thought.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

I can personally see both sides of this argument. To some extend I actually like the designs of the Watchknight. Very similar to Metropolis, and other classic scifi robot designs. I can see here the team got their inspiration.

However, the gigantic bosom, implied nipples (or aureola if you wish), and huge booty, I noticed right away. I’ve had long discussions about the depiction of women in video games before, and it would be pointless to make this another iteration of that same discussion (which involved lots of people calling others a feminist along with other nasty remarks).

On the whole, GW2 does a good job at depicting both men and women equally and respectfully. But there are some exceptions, and they kind of taint the MMO fantasy genre. Blatant sexualized depictions of female robots seems like a bit of a step backward to me.

If some female gamers feel bothered by that, they are entirely right to feel that way.

And on top of this, it’s lead to more “OMG boobs” discussions in map chat and some derogatory remarks, some of which have made me really uncomfortable. As if the election stuff was not enough…

I like them, so much so that i think they should be a future playable race, with varying metals for ‘looks’ etc . I reckon they look great, really detailed too! Well i can dream can’t i

I’m honestly not sure what the point of this thread is anymore. At this point NO ONE is bringing any new argument to the table, and NO ONE is budging from their stance no matter how good or bad the arguments are ( and there is a ton of both), and with no replies from a Anet employee to boot to show they even really see this as a problem.

I don’t see any boobs. I see a bra holding GEARS!

Broadicea.8294:

You are not the one who gets to decide what’s offensive to some people. And it’s not even about that, no one is saying “I am personally upset at this and I demand Anet consider my feels,” it’s about the detrimental impact to society caused by the overuse of sexist depictions of femininity.

Exactly. In particular, if you’re a man, you do not get to tell women to shut up about problematic portrayals of women. Hell, if you’re not part of any marginalized/stereotyped group, you do not get to tell people who are to shut up about portrayals that depict and affect them but not you — or ones that even benefit you in some way while harming them, as stereotypes tend to do.

(You also do not get to say “well, my female/gay/black friend thinks it’s fine so you still have to shut the eff up”. Just sayin’, because that comes up a whole lot too.)

It’s not that all men are actively, hatefully sexist or that all straight people are actively, hatefully homophobic, and so on, or that no one who is not part of any group can have an opinion about said group. Far from it! But many people who do not have the experience of being part of a marginalized/stereotyped group nonetheless have a very troubling attitude of “I don’t see the problem, and society treats me as the norm so there IS no problem”.

Celestina.2894:

I’m honestly not sure what the point of this thread is anymore. At this point NO ONE is bringing any new argument to the table, and NO ONE is budging from their stance no matter how good or bad the arguments are ( and there is a ton of both), and with no replies from a Anet employee to boot to show they even really see this as a problem.

That is because people don’t read and don’t understand concept of opinions.

Celestina.2894:

and with no replies from a Anet employee to boot to show they even really see this as a problem.

Oh they’re not stepping into this wasps nest. They are staying clear of any heated discussions on sexism in video games.

Although I think if you were to ask the designer(s) of the Watchknights why they made it so blatantly sexual, they would probably respond with: “We just thought they looked nice”

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Celestina.2894:

and with no replies from a Anet employee to boot to show they even really see this as a problem.

Oh they’re not stepping into this wasps nest. They are staying clear of any heated discussions on sexism in video games.

Although I think if you were to ask the designer(s) of the Watchknights why they made it so blatantly sexual, they would probably respond with: “We just thought they looked nice”

Given that’s what one of the artist friends I mentioned before said when I linked them? Yeah that’s probably a good call.

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Celestina.2894:

and with no replies from a Anet employee to boot to show they even really see this as a problem.

Oh they’re not stepping into this wasps nest. They are staying clear of any heated discussions on sexism in video games.

Although I think if you were to ask the designer(s) of the Watchknights why they made it so blatantly sexual, they would probably respond with: “We just thought they looked nice”

Given that’s what one of the artist friends I mentioned before said when I linked them? Yeah that’s probably a good call.

Pretty much :P or make up some lie about it :s

Ok, I was doing some searching on the internet and found something interesting:

SCP-217

Google it and read it. You will not be able to look at the Watchknights the same way again (not that people did after all the theories people have been making, but this one takes the cake).

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Celestina.2894:

and with no replies from a Anet employee to boot to show they even really see this as a problem.

Oh they’re not stepping into this wasps nest. They are staying clear of any heated discussions on sexism in video games.

Although I think if you were to ask the designer(s) of the Watchknights why they made it so blatantly sexual, they would probably respond with: “We just thought they looked nice”

Or it could be they didn’t really see it as such and thought “Hey a Queen with guards who look like athletic woman wouldn’t have people complaining.” Then they saw this thread and went into depression because they realized how volatile their community can be. As for them not responding I’m more surprise the moderator hasn’t nuked this thread out of the forums or even close with a warning of continue discussion of this topic, since as Celestina mention no one is budging on their stances, will result in penalties. I think the discussion has gone past it limit.

Chadramar.8156:

Broadicea.8294:

You are not the one who gets to decide what’s offensive to some people. And it’s not even about that, no one is saying “I am personally upset at this and I demand Anet consider my feels,” it’s about the detrimental impact to society caused by the overuse of sexist depictions of femininity.

Exactly. In particular, if you’re a man, you do not get to tell women to shut up about problematic portrayals of women. Hell, if you’re not part of any marginalized/stereotyped group, you do not get to tell people who are to shut up about portrayals that depict and affect them but not you — or ones that even benefit you in some way while harming them, as stereotypes tend to do.

(You also do not get to say “well, my female/gay/black friend thinks it’s fine so you still have to shut the eff up”. Just sayin’, because that comes up a whole lot too.)

It’s not that all men are actively, hatefully sexist or that all straight people are actively, hatefully homophobic, and so on, or that no one who is not part of any group can have an opinion about said group. Far from it! But many people who do not have the experience of being part of a marginalized/stereotyped group nonetheless have a very troubling attitude of “I don’t see the problem, and society treats me as the norm so there IS no problem”.

^This is really good. (I feel compelled to point out I’m male, btw). I would go one step further on this quote. “Society” doesn’t treat anyone any particular way, because society is a generalization we make in our own mind. If I’m mistreated by someone who looks different than me, it would be easy for me to take that hurt and say “wow, everyone who looks like that is a huge jerk!” And let’s say we see a lot of people we are around everyday having similar attitudes – this is what we call “society,” and its from a similar function of our brain – trying to find patterns in chaos. The problem are these:

1) Our view of society is informed 100% by our bias – we will see what we want to see.
2) Our view of society is limited to those things we actually see. I only see a very small segment of the city I live and work in, and yet it is easy for me (and all of us) to say “I know what this city is really all about.” I live in a city of nearly 1 million people. It would be the height of arrogance and self delusion for me to say I can speak on behalf of the whole city. I find it the height of arrogance for anyone to say they can speak on behalf of their entire gender. Exceptions being the very worst offenses, of course.

Finally – while I consider myself a strong advocate for women’s rights, minority’s rights, what have you… two aspects of some of the most common used arguments undermine their movement:

1) That what is offensive to one woman is therefore offensive to ALL women. Let’s leave out the obvious and tragic edge cases here like kitten . Watchknights are not offensive to all women everywhere. They (according to this post) offend some women.

2) That what some hyper-exposed version of some men’s offensive fantasies represent all men’s fantasies everywhere. They don’t. I don’t look at artistic representations of women and think BOOBS and SEX. Many men I know (and that’s the only group I’m qualified to represent) also don’t feel that way. Perhaps some men do. The mistake is when we say it is all men.

Some men hate, trivialize, and diminish women. Many women have an experience of feeling hated, trivialized, and diminished by some men, and some of those experiences would not offend every woman. Nor does it have to for feminism to be relevant.

I would also point out that the above statement can have both genders swapped into their counterparts anywhere in the sentence. In the case of feminism – yes, women in general have had a far worse go of things. No doubting that. Just pointing out that bad treatment is not gender specific, nor does it only target opposite genders.

I really feel the movement is strengthened by being more specific with language like this. As soon as men are generalized into a sex obsessed group, the movement risks losing 50% of its would-be supporters. Why wouldn’t feminism want to straighten up its language just a bit in order to not alienate so many supporters? Think of the groundswell! Could be huge.

The problem feminism faces isn’t men. It’s jerks, ignorance, and at times, it’s own lazy speech. I’d fight them in that order.

Let’s fight the jerks.

Fluffy Ferocious.9807:

As soon as men are generalized into a sex obsessed group, the movement risks losing 50% of its would-be supporters.

Not to mention it’s also sexist.

Crazylegsmurphy.6430:

neon.4863:

And there is no in-game reason for this, either, since I’ve yet to see a single female human NPC walking around with their breasts bare in a way that implies this is somehow socially acceptable in Krytan society.

@Erasculio: The point is they do not even need those body parts to begin with, yet there they are, for some reason beyond anyone’s comprehension.

The point is actually that they are part of the design for whatever reason the designer felt was necessary. Because you personally don’t see a reason for them, doesn’t automatically mean they’re bad, or unnecessary.

Here is a thought experiment. In places like Italy, it is not the social norm for women to walk around topless. However, there are thousands of statues, paintings, and other forms of art that depict topless, and fully naked women.

Why do people flock to Italy to look at the art, and not just settle for looking at nudity on the internet? Perhaps, it is because it’s not about the nudity.

Perhaps, it is because some people are able to see the beauty in art. That some people are more interested in the design, craft, and function of an object, than they are about whether it is nude or not.

See, the thing is you seem to be making this a sexual thing. You see “nipples”, a curvy butt, and high heels on a robot and you make it a sexual issue. To me, this is the equivalent of going to Italy and arguing there is no reason why the statues must be naked, and then saying it must be because of some male power fantasy.

I would argue they do have a point. It adds to the aesthetic of the robot. And while I may view it as sexualized, I don’t view it as sexual…meaning I don’t get all funny in the pants because it has pixelated nipples, anymore than I do when looking at art.

but in italy we have an equal amount of male naked and attention to their details, in art, so of course i don’t think during italian renaissance male or female felt objectified because it was the norm to be, naked or not, painted or sculpted by somebody.
not only that but you see also attention to details that in this modern age would be considered pornography. they had censorship in their time of course but they had their way to fight it (example provided in the picture below).
you don’t see this in tyria, you see attention when it comes to female body or female robots in this case (they both have generous curves and the robots have also areolas), while the male have flat kitten and no bulge and no robot counterpart, they can be muscular of course but they are designed not to be male but to look like the kind of male other males would like to be with no attention to their butt or bulge (i suppose the bulge is the boob counterpart). you don’t see flat ladies in this game, but you see flat men.
that said i don’t have any problem seeing this robots or appreciating those as a art design intended to be beautiful, but i have some problem when i don’t see any male counterpart (not necessarily in these robots but elsewhere).

explanation of the picture:
this is the neptune statue in piazza nettuno in bologna. the architect that designed it had to make it with a small kitten because the church censored him, it was not intended to have a small kitten. this is how with prospective eye illusion the architect solved this problem.

WTB Lord Faren in a speedo fanservice.

So many Commando jokes…so little time.

Broadicea.8294:

the ’splain is strong with this one

Thank you for trivializing and diminishing my opinion and statement. And also proving my point.

Willisium.5081:

I understand some people had that reaction to Buffy, and I must admit there are one or two episodes that I deem questionable myself, but on the whole its hard to argue Buffy is, akittens core, a sexist show.

I brought up Buffy for the exact reason that some people had similar views on the show that people are using here, and they have been debated from every which angle, and in the end MOST advocates of feminism agree that a depiction of a strong, powerful, beautiful woman kicking kitten is a positive image for women. And again, the buffy-bot example seems particularly apt.

And there’s a difference between reacting to something and wanting it censored. These robots are Queen Jennahs artistic message to the world of her image of herself and humanity.

Ypu’re allowed to dislike the aesthetics. Labelling it as inherintely sexist doesn’t seek to have much merit, for the reasons a lot of posters have outlined, but our best points get ignored in favor of pursuing straw dogs. Did anyone even watch the link city pidgeon put up?

although when buffy discover the true origin of slayer power she call it a kitten ! also when the same men that created the first slayer offer her a power up she strongly refuses it despite the threat at hand and she go away and come up with her own solution to the problem (sharing the power).
this is why buffy is a feminist icon more often than not, because she is the protector, she is the leader she never gives up and never been sidekick. also she often rescue her male and female friends when in danger while she always save herself! nobody ever came to buffy rescue, to aid her yes but that’s it

Isn’t the current concept art artist team lead, Jamie Ro, a woman?

She also seems to be the person most skilled at character art left after the great artist exodus at Anet. It would be cool to get some dev insight, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she concepted the watchknights herself.

If such is the case, would this affect anyone’s viewpoint on the design?

Lucky.9421:

Isn’t the current concept art artist team lead, Jamie Ro, a woman?

She also seems to be the person most skilled at character art left after the great artist exodus at Anet. It would be cool to get some dev insight, but I wouldn’t be surprised if she concepted the watchknights herself.

If such is the case, would this affect anyone’s viewpoint on the design?

She is lead concept artist last I check, yes. So I’d be shocked if she did not have some say in the design.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Perhaps a few perspective will be altered but the majority here seem content on simply continue their false accusations and word twisting.

For clarity. I am not trying to say that a female designer can not possibly be sexist against women. I don’t think that is the case.

But if the watchknights were designed by a woman, I think it is at least something worthy of consideration.

Lucky.9421:

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Perhaps a few perspective will be altered but the majority here seem content on simply continue their false accusations and word twisting.

For clarity. I am not trying to say that a female designer can not possibly be sexist against women. I don’t think that is the case.

But if the watchknights were designed by a woman, I think it is at least something worthy of consideration.

I never implied you were suggesting such. I was simply stating that a few perspectives would alter, not necessary opposite of their original stance, but most would ignore it.

After reading and participating in this thread I feel my true opinion on the Watchknight form isn’t as foolish as I once believe.

Amadan.9451:

Willisium.5081:

I understand some people had that reaction to Buffy, and I must admit there are one or two episodes that I deem questionable myself, but on the whole its hard to argue Buffy is, akittens core, a sexist show.

I brought up Buffy for the exact reason that some people had similar views on the show that people are using here, and they have been debated from every which angle, and in the end MOST advocates of feminism agree that a depiction of a strong, powerful, beautiful woman kicking kitten is a positive image for women. And again, the buffy-bot example seems particularly apt.

And there’s a difference between reacting to something and wanting it censored. These robots are Queen Jennahs artistic message to the world of her image of herself and humanity.

Ypu’re allowed to dislike the aesthetics. Labelling it as inherintely sexist doesn’t seek to have much merit, for the reasons a lot of posters have outlined, but our best points get ignored in favor of pursuing straw dogs. Did anyone even watch the link city pidgeon put up?

although when buffy discover the true origin of slayer power she call it a kitten ! also when the same men that created the first slayer offer her a power up she strongly refuses it despite the threat at hand and she go away and come up with her own solution to the problem (sharing the power).
this is why buffy is a feminist icon more often than not, because she is the protector, she is the leader she never gives up and never been sidekick. also she often rescue her male and female friends when in danger while she always save herself! nobody ever came to buffy rescue, to aid her yes but that’s it

I went into the original Watchers in my post before that one, the one I was following up. In universe she was created by a group of men for the sole purpose of fighting to defend others, until it kills her. On face value that’s as sexist as people are arguing the watchknights are. My point is that when you give something its full context it tells a different story.

I would repost my whole Buffy / Watchknights analogy but there’s enough rehashing of old posts already in this thread.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

I never implied you were suggesting such. I was simply stating that a few perspectives would alter, not necessary opposite of their original stance, but most would ignore it.

I think discussion of sexism in video games is worthy of our time as gamers. The past 5 years or so has seen a lot more women enjoying the medium and they are now a major part of the community

One thing that I feel is really important is that for women to be able to be involved in the game design process, which has historically been a boy’s world. And not just low level positions, but positions of leadership.

With Kekai Kotaki’s departure as Concept Art Team Lead, and Jamie Ro’s move to fill his position, we have another woman in a leadership role in game design. As much as I love Kotaki’s work, Ro is certainly talented enough to fill that role from the pieces I have seen. I do not begrudge her taking over that job.

It is also worth noting that the lead armor/fashion designer is Kristen Perry. She has been making armors for Anet since the GW1 days.

The thing is – how much discretion to the designers themselves have when it comes to following an overall design decision based on marketing considerations etc?

Sometimes what might be a poor ethical choice could be the most logical one from an economics point of view no?

bhagwad.4281:

The thing is – how much discretion to the designers themselves have when it comes to following an overall design decision based on marketing considerations etc?

Sometimes what might be a poor ethical choice could be the most logical one from an economics point of view no?

I think that really depends on the company. We would have a hard time, as outsiders looking in, seeing how all decisions are made. Some things could be based on focus testing and what gets the most consumers, while others on the designers’s own artistic desires. People make games to sell, but they also make games for themselves. I think this similar to movies and music.

For what it’s worth, my observation of Anet leads me to think there wasn’t a marketing guy saying to the Art Team Lead “That robot needs to be sexier”

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

Fluffy Ferocious.9807:

As soon as men are generalized into a sex obsessed group, the movement risks losing 50% of its would-be supporters.

Not to mention it’s also sexist.

… I’m not sure anyone has made that generalization here, though? Or at least, 90% of commenters haven’t and it wasn’t the point of the OP. What are you responding to? Pointing out that a design innately appeals to the sensuality of hetero males isn’t an accusation of ~all men~ being ~sex obsessed~. It’d be more like a privilege check, or a check on the internalization of paternal culture, in regards to this specific watchknight design (though the thread has occasionally tangented to include other design choices, like the grossly huge Norn bodies and the wide difference between them and their human counterparts, vs the smaller difference between female Norn bodies and human females, differences between female & male armor of the same name, etc).

To address recent posts to the thread, this is why the complaints wouldn’t be different if it turns out a woman did decide to add heels and nipple bolts. We all process and internalize the culture we’re in; it’s no different for women. An action/design/text is not automagically “okay” or free from critique in feminist criticism just because the author was a woman. There’s still a larger context at work.

Fluffy Ferocious.9807:

The problem feminism faces isn’t men. It’s jerks, ignorance, and at times, it’s own lazy speech. I’d fight them in that order.

I… feel like your whole post is trying to re-explain feminism in a thread full of people already in-depth applying/rebutting feminist terms/theory to watchknights (at least in the first six or so pages, heh). That’s probably why you got such a snarky response. It’s like coming into a physics classroom and explaining multiplication at the end of the session. No one has said that the problem is men. You brought someone’s direct, specific reply out into a generalized straw man (as relating to this thread, anyways) critique of feminism. They are all valid points, aside from my quibble with your “society” definition, but I’m not sure they needed to be made. We all know what society is, we’re a bit beyond that semantic point in the discussion, but you felt like you had to re-explain to us. Aforementioned quibble: Society does treat people in certain ways, because “society” is a pattern of relationships and, at least in academia, is characterized by the overall sum of those relationships. In ethnographies, we write, “Suchandsuch society acts this way toward this subgroup.” Obviously society is not a person. It is a generalization. We all, I assume, understand how personification operates in the English language. Earlier, some were careful to say “Western Culture/society” but I’ve dropped that because it seems pretty self-evident.

To address your first point, since I started up there with your second: Who are you responding to? No one in this thread is saying the design is going to offend all women. They are trying to critique it from a feminist theory perspective. These are not the same things (as you said: “some of those experiences would not offend every woman. Nor does it have to for feminism to be relevant.”). What offends someone and what harms someone/society are not necessarily the same thing.

I think the rub was that your points seemed to be 1) defining obvious terms (society, objectivity) in a thread that’s had relatively decent in-depth discussions on “objectification”, “sexual” vs “sexualization”, and “idealization” just off the top of my head, 2) stating the obvious problem with two supposedly common arguments that I have not seen being made/not responding to a specific argument for or against the watchknights, and to top it all off 3) claiming that our supposed ignorance of the first two points is what is alienating all men (“50% of [feminism’s] would-be supporters”) from supporting feminism. Which is all a response to feminism at large, anyways, and not pros/cons of the design of the watchknights or feminist analysis of such. So, not to say that your points are not vaguely valid in some hypothetical situation or well said, just that they aren’t super on point for this 11 page long thread about a specific issue.

kimeekat – great response. I don’t agree with all of your assertions and I do find my comments relevant. Claryfing terminology in a complicated debate is always worthwhile, because in a debate like this, there are no hard rules like there are in physics or mathematics or multiplication. The only hard rules I can think of that everyone agrees to in the case of feminism are the definition of man and woman. The rest is very, very subjective. Hence debate.

This is not to assert that my comments are, in my mind, fact. They are my opinions and viewpoints, so I appreciate the feedback.

Darkbattlemage.9612:

Or it could be they didn’t really see it as such and thought “Hey a Queen with guards who look like athletic woman wouldn’t have people complaining.”

Eh? There’s nothing remotely athletic (or Amazonian, as someone else claimed) about its appearance. It’s a scrawny, stilt-legged naked fembot with sculpted breasts, belly button and high heels. It has pretend-nipples but no pretend-muscles. In no way is that thing anything more than generic, thoughtless, stereotypical fanservice.

Pixelpumpkin.4608:

Fluffy Ferocious.9807:

As soon as men are generalized into a sex obsessed group, the movement risks losing 50% of its would-be supporters.

Not to mention it’s also sexist.

Indeed it is. Mind, when I see someone speaking out against attitudes like “boys will be boys” or “it’s what men want” as sick excuses for all sorts of stereotypes or outright abuse of women, or against belittling or abuse of boys and men who are anything less than “hypermasculine”, it’s almost always a feminist, male or female.

There are bad apples anywhere, but despite what what many women go through, the “rabid man-hater” is mainly just yet another stereotype to shut women up — just as “whipped pansy” or “sissy” is an attempt to shame and silence male allies.

Lucky.9421:

Isn’t the current concept art artist team lead, Jamie Ro, a woman?

(…)

If such is the case, would this affect anyone’s viewpoint on the design?

No. Members of a stereotyped/marginalized group are perfectly capable of perpetuating the stereotypes and marginalization, especially if circumstances implicitly or explicitly expect or demand it of them.

kimeekat.2548:

I… feel like your whole post is trying to re-explain feminism in a thread full of people already in-depth applying/rebutting feminist terms/theory to watchknights (at least in the first six or so pages, heh). That’s probably why you got such a snarky response. It’s like coming into a physics classroom and explaining multiplication at the end of the session. No one has said that the problem is men. You brought someone’s direct, specific reply out into a generalized straw man (as relating to this thread, anyways) critique of feminism.

Thank you. Yep, that is why I will not reply to him — I do not care to have my words strawmanned, especially after I EXPLICITLY said:

It’s not that all men are actively, hatefully sexist or that all straight people are actively, hatefully homophobic, and so on, or that no one who is not part of any group can have an opinion about said group. Far from it!

Chadramar.8156:

kimeekat.2548:

I… feel like your whole post is trying to re-explain feminism in a thread full of people already in-depth applying/rebutting feminist terms/theory to watchknights (at least in the first six or so pages, heh). That’s probably why you got such a snarky response. It’s like coming into a physics classroom and explaining multiplication at the end of the session. No one has said that the problem is men. You brought someone’s direct, specific reply out into a generalized straw man (as relating to this thread, anyways) critique of feminism.

Thank you. Yep, that is why I will not reply to him — I do not care to have my words strawmanned, especially after I EXPLICITLY said:

It’s not that all men are actively, hatefully sexist or that all straight people are actively, hatefully homophobic, and so on, or that no one who is not part of any group can have an opinion about said group. Far from it!

Chadramar – I was speaking out in support of your statement, not refuting or criticizing it. My wording may have confused that intention, but regardless of how it may have come out when my fingers hit the keyboard, I was intending to elaborate on what you were saying. Sorry for any confusion on that point.

Chadramar.8156:

No.

Not even a tiny bit?

The problem feminism faces isn’t men. It’s jerks, ignorance, and at times, it’s own lazy speech. I’d fight them in that order.

I’d say it also suffers from the “Outrage Factory” style of media now, as well.

Basically there’s a group of people that only bring in a paycheck if they keep people outraged, so absolutely anything is going to be made into a controversy because that’s their job.

Your game has no women? It’s anti-women.

Your game has women, but they’re mostly removed from violence in the game? You’re sexist for implying women need men to defend them.

Your game has women, and they get hurt as much as the men? You’re sexist because your game encourages violence against women.

Your game has a male lead character? You’re marginalizing women.

Your game has a female lead character? She’s probably too “pretty” for someone, you’re still sexist.

Your game has a completely “normal” female lead? You’re still sexist, she’s clearly just a token female, not a role-model for girls.

Your game somehow magically has absolutely nothing that anyone could create any sexist outrage about? We’ll just pretend it doesn’t exist.

So on and so forth. Eventually people on the outside start thinking that there’s no cohesive message to the entire feminist movement and instead figure, “Ok, so basically everything is offensive to women. Can’t really take this seriously.”

Also, men aren’t the enemy, you’re right. Some of us are rather sick of being labeled “The Villain” in pretty much every scenario just because of our chromosomes.

Fluffy Ferocious.9807

1) Our view of society is informed 100% by our bias – we will see what we want to see.
.

I view this more as an opinion and not a fact. I do not agree it being a 100%

Fluffy Ferocious.9807:

Chadramar – I was speaking out in support of your statement, not refuting or criticizing it. My wording may have confused that intention, but regardless of how it may have come out when my fingers hit the keyboard, I was intending to elaborate on what you were saying. Sorry for any confusion on that point.

Thank you. It did read like a derail, but if that was not your intention, I’m glad and appreciate the clarification.

Bovinity.8610:

I’d say it also suffers from the “Outrage Factory” style of media now, as well.

… yeah, mainstream gaming sites and mainstream media in general are so chock-full of “outrage” against the problematic depictions and treatment of women everywhere. Oh wait. They’re not. It’s a topic that is often deliberately overlooked or shouted down, and pretty much limited to heavily moderated “safe spaces” because mentioning it elsewhere means you’re often considered fair game for graphic abuse and outright kitten and death threats — and then blamed for THAT too.

Eventually people on the outside start thinking that there’s no cohesive message to the entire feminist movement and instead figure, “Ok, so basically everything is offensive to women. Can’t really take this seriously.”

Textbook examples of how certain people who benefit from the status quo distort the words of marginalized groups or social justice movements in order to discredit them and shut them up. This one is particularly odd in the context of this game:

Your game has women, and they get hurt as much as the men? You’re sexist because your game encourages violence against women.

… because all I have ever said, and heard from others, is that having women in all roles and archetypes is a GOOD thing, and that includes villains and enemies of every description, from nameless mooks to bosses. In fact, it’s a must-have feature for any setting that is supposedly egalitarian, and it’s one of the things that GW2 does very well overall. What is sexist, very much so, is when violence against female characters is sexualized and fetishized.

Also, men aren’t the enemy, you’re right. Some of us are rather sick of being labeled “The Villain” in pretty much every scenario just because of our chromosomes.

Then I trust you’re speaking out against those who enable, excuse and perpetuate problematic and abusive behavior from certain men, because THEY are the ones painting men as villains. Pointing out that behavior and trying to get it more widely recognized as problematic is not remotely the same. In fact, it’s often us “evil, man-hating” feminists who mention how gender stereotypes hurt and limit men too.

Chadramar.8156:

… yeah, mainstream gaming sites and mainstream media in general are so chock-full of “outrage” against the problematic depictions and treatment of women everywhere. Oh wait. They’re not. It’s a topic that is often deliberately overlooked or shouted down, and pretty much limited to heavily moderated “safe spaces” because mentioning it elsewhere means you’re often considered fair game for graphic abuse and outright kitten and death threats — and then blamed for THAT too.

I think it should have read “generally anyone online” because I see this sort of thing online a whole lot more than in real life. And no, not from media. From users who I’m not sure are serious or just kicking up a firestorm to do it. (They do exist.) It’s more common with those who seek to politicize anything and everything, but I’ve seen people pull gender politics out as their first response to something they don’t approve of . . .

But, being a male who is attracted to the female form (not the sort the watchknights have, though) I should probably shut up and go farm CS again

I don’t really care about the feminine appearance, but the stilettos? Those are just completely impractical and unnecessary.

Elbegast.6970:

I just assumed they were an ode to Fritz Lang’s 1927 film “Metropolis” . I think some of you may be getting upset over what should be a beautiful thing….a nod to a dead guy.

This was the FIRST thing that popped into my head – not so much the nod, but taking inspiration from Metropolis. The second one was “gahhh, every time I kill a Vet, I gotta kill one of these bloody robots, too?!?!?!?!”

Someone’s a LOT too overly sensitive.

Yamsandjams.3267:

I don’t really care about the feminine appearance, but the stilettos? Those are just completely impractical and unnecessary.

it makes a lot of sense…
i can totally picture our queen down into bdsm, all naked in stiletto ordering logan something stupid to do… while caithe stealthed just stay there and watch… more and more deep into the nightmare…

i’m joking of course…

I see the moderator’s haven’t locked this thread up yet. I am amazed…..I guess they find this topic (interesting)

Tobias Trueflight.8350:

I think it should have read “generally anyone online” because I see this sort of thing online a whole lot more than in real life. And no, not from media. From users who I’m not sure are serious or just kicking up a firestorm to do it. (They do exist.)

Yeah, they sadly do. No argument. But — please also consider that if you’re not part of a marginalized group, then their lived experience is not yours and a negative reaction that looks out-of-the blue or over-the-top to you can in fact simply be the culmination of a long string of problems, or something that pushed a bad trigger.

For example, take street harassment. If you pay what you think of and intend as a genuine compliment to a woman who catches your eye and she glares or snaps at you, it’s easy to think “What a b-word, WTF is her problem?!” What you did NOT see are the jerkwads who catcalled, followed, belittled or threatened her to the point where she’s just had it and is too stressed to think of much beyond getting home safely. It’s not fair to you, no, but it’s even less fair to her. Similarly, being openly female (or gay/trans/etc.) on the internet can result in so much abuse that a fellow who makes what he thinks is a harmless joke triggers may an outburst because the woman in question is so worn out from all the BS.

None of us is a mind reader, especially if all we have to go by are words on a screen without tone or body language, and many times the difference between a “harmless” remark and deliberate bullying can be extremely hard to tell.

Edit: Meh, actually, nevermind. Just being male and being in proximity to these topics makes you a bad person anymore, so I’m just gonna run away.

Chadramar.8156:

None of us is a mind reader, especially if all we have to go by are words on a screen without tone or body language, and many times the difference between a “harmless” remark and deliberate bullying can be extremely hard to tell.

As someone who works in food service, and has for a few years now, AND also has worked customer service? Yeah, I can completely comprehend this and it’s part of what should be good training at any of those jobs to divorce what would be “completely understandable reactions” (“Did you see that look s/he gave me? If I wouldn’t go to jail I’d smack that right off of him/her”) from your thinking.

It’s precisely the problem of not being able to know what another person is thinking, what they’ve gone through that day, or if they’re even being truthful to you if they start telling you stories about it. (Or, on the flipside, if they deny anything happened at all.)

There are exactly three things left to say from me:

- No remark is completely and inherently harmless, no matter how you meant it; some people have thicker skins or different perspectives on it. This even includes facts such as “2+2=4”. If you don’t believe that can start a fight with someone, you have not worked with the public enough.

- The online world has made it such that the veracity of any given evidence is questionable. Even things such as photographs or audio can be faked by someone with adequate enough resources, which means “truth” is a very pliable concept these days. Adding to that, cases of hearsay, second-party or third-party accounts? Things become a horrendous mess of trying to figure out “the trooth” in anything anywhere online which isn’t an independently verifiable fact such as “2+2=4” or “wine is fermented juices”.

- You’re right to have been concerned about the watchknights, but it is proven to have been for a completely different reason.