Guild Wars 2

Vardainiel.3674:

Queen Elizabeth is called The Queen. Not the king. Just saying. Just an example. Think about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Netherlands#.C2.A71:_King

Dutch constitution, not a single mention of “Queen”, even though we’ve had exclusively queens for most of the 20th century. (We have a king now, but that’s beside the point). The point is that “King” (or in your case, “Emperor”) is a genderless title so much as it is a gendered title. In the constitution’s case, it’s a genderless title, and simply refers to “the monarch”. It would, however, have been silly to go around calling Beatrix (our former queen) “King”, even though legally you’d have been entirely right to call her that.

You’re entirely right to want to have the title “Empress” instead of “Emperor”. I see no fault of logic in that, despite the fact that you could argue that “Emperor” works just fine if we take things absolutely literally. However, the arguments you’ve made so far for your case are a little silly, if not self-demeaning. From a gender egalitarian point of view, it’d be absolutely ideal to do away with the feminine title and just use the masculine title for everyone, regardless of gender. Why the masculine title? Because French. The French language treats masculine as being masculine, and as being gender-neutral.

Crash course:
“They” in French translates to “ils” (masculine) and “elles” (feminine). However, if you refer to a group that contains both sexes (even if it’s only one man and a lot of women), you use “ils” (neutral), which happens to be the exact same word as the masculine version. The French know this not to be sexist, but a simple fact of their language, though of course some feminist extremists will disagree and scream “historical patriarchy!”.

So you’ve absolutely failed to refute that argument, and you’d have to be a genius to indeed refute it. And yet, I agree with you to rename the title for one simple reason: Guild Wars 2 is not a work of ideology, and nowhere else in the game does it use gender-neutral terms (i.e., neutralised masculine words) on women. The French version of the game fairly uses the correct masculine and feminine prefixes where applicable, which means that rangers are either “rôdeurs” (masculine) or “rôdeuses” (feminine). This hints that the game’s text implementation is capable of taking the character’s sex into account, and I see no reason why it shouldn’t in case of this title.

Sharpened Edges is still a joke, especially if you compare it to your “Poison Tipped Arrow” suggestion.

TheLaughingMan.4320:

wars.2083:

i would rather see more content rather then a new client for those 3 extra players

qft

I lol when linux users say their OS is superior… Sorry but Directx is the dominant library for developing games aimed at a mass market, and unless a company can afford to muck about on something that will not make them much money compared to expenses, don’t hold your breath.

Dominant != superior. By that standard, Windows XP was the superior operating system no more than a few years ago when clearly Windows 7, OS X and any modern version of Linux were far better than the old hag we call Windows XP.

Whether or not DirectX is better than its competitors, I won’t say, but I had to call out on this erroneous piece of logic.

I understand the frustration. Charrs and sylvari have the same problem. Charrs don’t get to see their amazing fur patterns, and sylvari never get to show off their wonderful colourful skin. But I don’t think hiding the chestpiece is the right way to solve the problem. It’s a dirty fix that has a lot of drawbacks attached to it. New armour that allows players to show off would be a much more appropriate fix.

Shoulders: Sure.

Chest: No. Not because I’m prude, but because the levels of abuse just wouldn’t be funny anymore, and in fact gamebreaking. That, and people rely on armour visually to identify the profession of players. Instead, I’d very much support armour that shows a decent portion of the chest much like GW1’s ritualist armour sets.

Proxy, Sharpened Edges kind of sucks. It applies one stack of bleeding for one second, and should be upped to something like five seconds. One second is just ghastly.

What? I never suggested stripping down women to their underwear? Nobody in this thread ever did. In fact, this thread doesn’t even mention the need for armour that sexually depicts women (or men), but I’m forced to go down that route while arguing with you. Worse yet, you say “just say no to tasteless tacky armour”, then quote me saying that all I want is tasteful armour. Can you please sort yourself out?

I’ve just completely lost your sense of logic. Do you even have any idea how confusing you are? “I’m not against skimpy armour, but I want normal functional armours, which means outfits that do not expose boobs and/or underwear. Also I’m not assuming that anything that doesn’t feature sexualisation is better, but I’m kind of implying exactly that by implying that it’s a negative stereotype.”

That’s how you’re coming across to me.

So let’s redo this.

1. Sexual depiction isn’t bad.
2. Sexism is bad.
3. Women are currently exclusively being sexually depicted.
4. That’s sexism.
5. Let’s undo that sexism by sexually depicting men, too, at least in the armour department. Because applying rational logic, men aren’t exclusively objectified by how they look, but we’re going to forget that logic for a moment.
6. ???
7. Profit.

We agreed on point one that sexual depiction isn’t necessarily bad. And we agreed that sexism is bad. And we agreed that women are almost exclusively sexually depicted. And we agreed that that is sexism on the premise that it’s discrimination on the basis of gender. Then you disagreed with my proposed solution of evening out the sexual depiction between the genders, with no solid reasons other than “well we could just leave it out as well”, followed by strings of text that are somehow supposed to reveal negative stereotypes which I quite frankly don’t get.

We agreed that sexual depiction isn’t evil. You heavily disagreed with me when I stated that it’s sexual depiction you despise, and now you’re more or less changing your mind. So why, if sexual depiction isn’t evil, are you shying away from using sexual depiction on men to even out the levels of sexism?

Worse yet, I hate using the word “sexual depiction” or “sexualisation”, because those things hardly exist in Guild Wars 2. “Sexy” would be a better word, but the problem is that one can be sexy in a plethora of ways, and each and every person attaches different meaning to “sexy”. So sexual depiction is what I’ll go with, even though what I really mean is armour that shows enough skin to be considered either a little bit provocative or sexually attractive.

You suggest “not to show either gender as sexualised stereotypes”, which is kind of abuse of the word stereotype, but I’ll just give you that. By saying that, you’re ignoring human nature of being attracted to sexualisation like bees to honey. Now we have the choice to aptly incorporate sexualisation by doing so in a tasteful manner and applying it to both genders, or by solely throwing sexualisation of body at women in the taste ANet has chosen so far (which is far from atrocious).

All I’m rooting for is having equalised armour for men and women, and tasteful attractive armour that reveals skin, as well as tasteful attractive armour that doesn’t reveal skin. Why do you have to keep disagreeing in the end? To keep the debate going because you so much enjoy expressing your opinion on how women are objectified? Please.

edit: In fact, I’ll quote you once more, because you have a habit of editing your posts.

“I object to the skimpy outfits that women are always (or often) are made to wear in games.”

You’re contradicting yourself. Heavily. First you tell Enewia you don’t oppose skimpy armour, now you bluntly say that you do oppose skimpy armour. Will you finally make up your mind? Because, just by reading this sentence, it’s once again not sexism you’re opposing, but sexual depiction, which you’ll now tell me you don’t at all oppose. If it truly is sexism you’re opposing, you would agree with me that depicting the genders in an equally skimpy manner would solve the problem, as well as offering both genders the option not to wear skimpy armour at all, which GW2 already does.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Rubykuby.3427:

I’ll repeat after myself: So much as I hate economics, one does not simply work against the market’s demands.

Oh rubbish. An audience can demand better characters, and we can see that it works. Crystal Dynamics made an honest effort to reinvent the Lara Croft character to make her appealing to a wider audience. They had to, because despite people liking sexy Lara, the oversexualization of the character had come to a point where no one could possibly take her serious any more.

It is okay to demand better quality, even if you are a minority. But I don’t think we are a minority. A vocal minority perhaps, but not a minority in itself. And I think game studios realize that.

Not rubbish. Look up the TED talk by Jane McGonigal. Video game characters are an idealisation of oneself. Being sexy is a major demand of many people in idealisation of oneself, and sexiness is therefore a market demand. One can be sexy in a tasteful and unoffensive manner entirely, even when showing skin in accordance to the thread, so I don’t see the issue.

The fact of the matter is that people want attractive characters, and a fair chunk of the people that want attractive characters don’t want just attractive, but sexy too. This can be skillfully pulled off without causing any hassles or discrimination, as seen in GW1.

I don’t see the issue you’re still having, considering in my idea all sexism would be taken care of. Hence my earlier assumptions that it’s not the sexism that bothers you, but the concept of sexualised depiction of women.

edit: Also, you’re assuming that “not sexually depicted” equals “better”. That’s an erroneous assumption.

I’ll repeat after myself: So much as I hate economics, one does not simply work against the market’s demands.

And provided both sexes are portrayed skimpily, it wouldn’t be sexist, and therefore wouldn’t negatively affect the female image in relation to the male image.

But I don’t have the default assumption that a skimpy portrayal is offensive or degrading. It can be, but it needn’t be. In the same manner, a dumb portrayal can be offensive or degrading. “ME SMASH” characters are exclusively male, and this phenomenom is therefore sexist. Applying the same points of action:

1. A dumb portrayal isn’t offensive per se.
2. Sexism is bad.
3. Solely men are portrayed as dumb.
4. That is sexist.
5. Let’s undo that sexism by portraying women as dumb, too.
6. ???
7. Profit.

That approach makes sense. The approach of removing dumb characters doesn’t make sense, because dumb characters have their place in fantasy settings. In the very same manner, sexy characters have their place in fantasy settings. The challenge is to evenly spread out the sexiness between the genders as not to call forth sexism.

No, because there’s a demand for sexualisation, and there is nothing inherently wrong with sexualisation.

edit: Even then, this thread is not asking for sexualised armour. It’s asking for armour that shows skin.

I’m saying that this is not the topic for that debate, no matter how interesting. That, and I’ve lost my patience with you.

1. Sexual depiction isn’t bad.
2. Sexism is bad.
3. Women are currently exclusively being sexually depicted.
4. That’s sexism.
5. Let’s undo that sexism by sexually depicting men, too, at least in the armour department. Because applying rational logic, men aren’t exclusively objectified by how they look, but we’re going to forget that logic for a moment.
6. ???
7. Profit.

What more is there to argue? The nitpicky details?

Rubykuby.3427:

Also, in a new post, how on Earth is any of this stuff related to the actual suggestion of “more variety in armour”? This topic requested more armour that features skin for both sexes alike, and instead it’s plagued by complaints about sexism towards women (which is ironic because the thread requested skimpy armour for both men and women, and is therefore anything but inherently sexist).

So I’ll pose the following questions:
“Do we want armour that reveals skin?”
and
“What conditions should be met if the answer to the latter question is yes?”

I’ve already answered that question with four points:
1. It has to be tasteful.
2. It has to be equal for both sexes.
3. There has to be a balance between revealing and non-revealing armour.
4. Functionality should be considered, though not absolutely mandatory.

Discuss that, not this useless sexism against women stuff we have to constantly cope with.

inb4 this thread is ruined.

My opinion? Sure, as townclothes, I guess. Only provided men are given swimming trunks.

Also, in a new post, how on Earth is any of this stuff related to the actual suggestion of “more variety in armour”? This topic requested more armour that features skin for both sexes alike, and instead it’s plagued by complaints about sexism towards women (which is ironic because the thread requested skimpy armour for both men and women, and is therefore anything but inherently sexist).

So I’ll pose the following questions:
“Do we want armour that reveals skin?”
and
“What conditions should be met if the answer to the latter question is yes?”

I’ve already answered that question with four points:
1. It has to be tasteful.
2. It has to be equal for both sexes.
3. There has to be a balance between revealing and non-revealing armour.
4. Functionality should be considered, though not absolutely mandatory.

Discuss that, not this useless sexism against women stuff we have to constantly cope with.

/me sighs.

If you truly cared for the sexist side of things, you would have long rooted for my approach of giving men and women the same armour sets. Instead, you do this: “I’m against a persistent sexual portrayal of women, which is an offensive stereotype because it is the only way women are constantly portrayed (save for a few games, such as Half-Life and Uncharted)”

In the very first sentence, you admit that you’re against sexual portrayal of women. No matter how men are portrayed, truly, you just can’t stand the fact that women are portrayed sexually. And Guild Wars 2 has to make up for the industry’s wrongdoings by containing no sexual portrayal of women at all. That’s not how it works. Guild Wars 2 has included very little sexual portrayal, little enough to be considered acceptable entirely, but you still beat at the fact that Guild Wars 2 indeed sexualises.

That aside, let’s carry on to the next part of your sentence: “which is an offensive stereotype because it is the only way women are constantly portrayed” Just because something only applies to women, doesn’t mean it’s offensive. This is just faulty reasoning. That’s like saying “only men are featured as ‘the boss’ in romantic comedies. This is therefore offensive towards men.” (It’s funny because feminists will say that it’s offensive towards women, even though the boss is always a kitten)

Make your mind up. Instead of beating at the current armour for women in Guild Wars 2, opt for more options for men instead (which is exactly what this topic does!!!). Problem solved. But of course, this would only be true if you cared for equality. But you don’t really, and are looking for any way to prove that women are treated unfairly.

Exactly. Pornography exists due to a demand from both genders. In the same manner – in real life – sexually hinting clothes for women exist due to demand from and approval of both genders. Stretching further on, sexually appealing armour exists in video games due to demand from and approval of both genders. My. Point. Entirely. But you’re pretending that there’s no demand for such armour, or that the existence of such armour is ethically challenging. The existence of such armour is perfectly fine, even though some sets take it a few notches too far, which I can understand. The fact men don’t get access to that armour isn’t perfectly fine, though, and unfair on both men and women.

Also, what, “point out embarrassing truths”? What are you, the bringer of truth? To claim that what you say is true is a very bold statement, and I’ll never resort to using that tactic. The only truth I dare say is that women get access to a bigger diversity of armour than men, and that women are more often skimpily depicted than men. To give these truths subjective meanings is no truth. It is my opinion that the way women are depicted in Guild Wars 2 is acceptable overall, and that men should be depicted in the same way as women when wearing the same armour set. There is no truth in either statement, much like there’s no truth in most of your statements. So don’t come in here and say that you’ve revealed the truth about sexism to all, because you quite frankly haven’t.

“You are confusing your terminology in regards to this discussion. I’m addressing the issues of an offensive stereotype against women, which appears in the form of sexual depictions. I’m not against sexual depictions. I’m against the difference in which women are depicted from men. And this is a clear case of sexism, women are portrayed differently. It conforms to a persistent negative stereotype of women in video games. You really want to argue semantics here?”

I have no idea how your logic works. You’re against a supposed offensive stereotype (which doesn’t offend a lot of women to start with) in the form of sexual depiction. There is no “sexism” involved in sexual depiction. What is sexism is the difference in depiction of genders in relation to one another. You’re against the concept of sexual depiction, for you classify that as a “negative stereotype” and “offensive”. Every argument you make is based mostly on how sexual depiction is offensive, even the arguments in which you try to address actual sexism of differences in depiction, which I’ll show next.

“We both take part in a play. I get handed my awesome necro costume, and you get handed a speedo. Would I have any right to be offended by the fact that I didn’t get to wear the speedo?”

Not only is this argument way out of proportions and out of context, it has the negative aspects of sexual depiction as core mechanic. So let’s take away the assumption that one thing is inherently worse than the other: Men get choice X, women get choice X and Y. Men now have every right to be offended by the fact that they don’t get Y. That is my reasoning. In the same manner, men have every right to be offended by the fact that they do not (or barely) have access to armour that reveals skin, while women do.

But you penalise sexualisation as a whole, and take the extremes to prove your point.

“I think everyone can confirm that I’ve already blatantly stated that I wouldn’t mind attractive outfits on both men and women. I’m all for equality. But right now there isn’t. So I attack the inequality.”

Yes you have. But that’s beside the point. I pointed out that even if men and women had exactly the same armour, you would still come here and complain. Let’s say winged armour were the same for both men and women, and men had to wear the women’s version. I dare say that you would still point at winged armour as being sexist [sic] against women, because it’s offensive and untasteful.

Your problem is not the difference in depiction, but the actual depiction. And for that, you’ll need to use a different thread. If you’re offended by armour that hints at sexuality, then this topic is not your place to be. This thread called for more revealing armour for both men and women alike. You’ve admitted yourself that revealing needn’t be equated to sexualisation, and that revealing armour is very much possible without any sexual aspects. And truth be told? That’s exactly what this thread is requesting: Armour that shows skin, is sexy, but isn’t sexualised, much like GW1’s armours.

Instead you come into this thread and moan and complain about existing armour sets and armour sets from different games, neither of which have anything to do with this thread. You’ve made your point on not wanting sexualised armour, and most people agreed with you, but you’re not stopping there in satisfaction. You want to keep going until everybody agrees with you that the current depiction of women in video games is far from ideal, which is off-topic entirely.

Make your own topic for your goal to tell developers that the existing armour sets are supposedly offensive (even though as demonstrated in this thread, the majority disagrees with you there, and maybe it’s just you being offended).

Oh finally. You’ve stated what you want to achieve. “Make game designers aware that they should break away from this sexist depiction of women”. I mean what? Guild Wars 2 is the wrong game for that, seeing as how this game barely crosses the line on what you find “sexist”.

That aside, you’re not against the “sexist depiction of women”, you’re against “sexually appealing depictions of women”. Please stop abusing the term “sexism” like it’s the kitten child of a widow. Sexism is discrimination on the premise of gender, and that’s all there is to it.

“But women are treated in a sexist manner, because men don’t get the same treatment!” you may scream and shout. Which I agree with to some extent, even though that statement blatantly ignores that men are therefore in turn discriminated against as well. But fine, let’s have it your way, women are discriminated against. So what do I suggest? Let’s treat men and women the same. Let’s give both tasteful revealing armour choices (a suggestion you’ve never made a comment on, seeing as you’d rather hold a tirade on how women are currently abused than do anything constructive).

But you disagree with this. It’s not that you’d mind skimpy armour on men (you’re in favour of that. “See how you like that filthy men!”), it’s that you severely mind skimpy armour on women. There is no single argument in the world that could possibly make you condone skimpy armour on women, even if men received the same treatment. Because whenever you see skimpy armour on women, your mind quite figuratively goes haywire, and you want to scream and shout sexism, sexual objectification, sexualisation, eroticism and all the big words in protest of what’s being displayed on your screen. Never mind sexism, you’re against anything sexually oriented in video games, but only if it puts women in a supposed bad light.

What you’re ignoring entirely, is that you do not represent women, and that you do not represent the silent majority. You represent feminism at its core, and all you’re doing is doing feminists a giant favour. There have been heaps of women in this topic who have told you repeatedly that they don’t mind the current depiction of women in video games, and are quite in favour of both revealing and non-revealing armour sets. You’re imagining a majority that supports your viewpoint who doesn’t open their mouths. But tell you what, if such a majority existed, the sexual depiction of women out in the real world would’ve long stopped. As a matter of fact, if such a majority existed, pornography wouldn’t exist. “But it’s solely male oppression that allows these things to exist!” you might resist. I’d call you a nutter. Male oppression is a myth.

Besides, this is not the thread for your not-a-crusade against sexual (not sexist, I’ll remind you, please stop sexually abusing that term already) depiction of women in video games. This is the thread that calls for more diversity of armour in Guild Wars 2 for both sexes alike, no sexism involved. If you want to combat sexualisation of women, open a new thread and call it “Please Stop Sexual Depiction of Women in Guild Wars 2”.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Rubykuby.3427:

@MQM Why are you again stressing the bikini argument when nobody in this entire thread has ever brought it up with full support? It’s as if you’re satisfying your own need to reassure that bikini outfits are offensive, rather than contributing to the point at hand.

You are missing the point entirely. It’s an analogy. It’s not really about bikinis, it’s about the difference between choice of wardrobe, and a sexist choice of wardrobe. I was defending the analogy, because it is a good analogy. It explains exactly why women find skimpy outfits in MMO’s offensive, even though no one is forcing them to wear them.

I’m missing the point? As the poster above me pointed out, it’s you who is missing the point entirely. Bikinis have nothing to do with the topic, and you’re doing nothing other than arguing the pointless for your own satisfaction. That supposed analogy of bikinis means nothing to us, because it’s both unrealistic and unrelated to the topic at hand.

Maybe if you replied to my four points of improvement in my taller post on this page, that’d be a contribution to the debate. But instead you argue about nitpicky things that really mean nothing to this thread. I’ve even gone so far as debating these tiny little things with you a few pages back until I simply couldn’t cope with the amount of whining anymore. And I’ve not come back to continue hearing whining in relation to sexism against women, which this thread has little or nothing to do with, even though the broader subject very much intrigues me.

So either respond to my points of improvement, or come up with your own as the person above me suggested, but don’t come in here to whine at every string of text you can quote for your own crusade of combatting sexism against women.

@MQM Why are you again stressing the bikini argument when nobody in this entire thread has ever brought it up with full support? It’s as if you’re satisfying your own need to reassure that bikini outfits are offensive, rather than contributing to the point at hand. The point at hand is that we want to do away with sexual dimorphism. And not in the “haha you males can wear wear skimpy armour and see how you like it” way either.

The weirdest thing of all is that most people in this thread agree with the four points of action I’ve brought up in my earlier post. It’s just that the feminist-aligned folks want to keep stressing how much sexual objectification sucks for women, and how much everybody should be sorry for women, when that’s not the point. The point is that we want more diverse armour, not more sexually diverse armour (i.e., different on the premise of gender).

But you keep stressing how very offensive some armour can be, when that’s hardly actually even the case in Guild Wars 2 (and don’t you dare bring up other games again, because that’s once again not the point). Sure, there are some armour sets that could be called distasteful, but they’re in the extreme minority. Are we calling for more distasteful armour? Not at all, which you would know if you read the very first post in this thread.

As a matter of fact, the amount of whining from the feminist side of things is wearing me down. I know you feel strongly about this, but no single amount of whining will get you anywhere. Propose solutions instead. I’ve proposed countless solutions in my posts, but none of them actually got any feedback. Instead, I simply got complaints thrown at me for some of the surrounding bits of text.

We get that there’s some pretty sexist kitten in the world, and that women are often victimised by that very sexism, but that’s not the point in this thread. Sexism enrages me as much as it enrages you, though I take sexism against men very dearly too. But this is simply not a soapbox for anti-sexist complaints. This is a thread on the diversity of armour in Guild Wars 2, so let’s keep it at that.

Leo, the petty thing is that I didn’t actually insult anybody other than challenge opinions/ideologies She’s not doing “the same thing”. She’s ironically doing exactly what she falsely accused me of.

This really should not be something to complain about. “Been There. Done That” is a hard achievement to get. Consider WvW a challenge, not a hurdle.

You have to give me a rational explanation on how I am any of the things you’ve quite bluntly accused me of.

… What. Okay, I’m getting multiple messages from the bolded points in the quote on the rules.

First: Disagreeing with feminism is hate speech?
Second: I’m not harassing or insulting anyone. If you thought “chew” was offensive, then know that “chewing on something” means giving something some deep thought.
Third: I’m not attacking anyone based on religion, sex, race or what have you.

I’m disagreeing with people based on their ideology. That’s debating, not hating.

edit: I’m not going to start an edit wars. Please address my questions in a new post. I do not in the least see how on Earth I’ve been any of the things you’ve just accused me of.

Explain to me how that was off-topic, offensive or even filled with misconceptions.

And yes, I’ve seen that site. And no, I don’t care for it, for it’s inherently sexist for solely focusing on women. I’m a gender egalitarian, not a feminist.

Third, make sure there’s a balance between revealing armour and non-revealing armour. Not everybody likes revealing armour, or likes being sexualised. That’s okay! I can imagine that entirely. And these people should be provided with their options, too. And assuming point 2 is taken into account, hopefully that’d get rid of the assumption that revealing armour is created on the premise of sexism. These non-revealing armour sets in turn desexualise women, for I do very well realise that women’s sex has been abnormally exaggerated, and a breakaway isn’t uncalled for.

Fourth, while not a necessity, consider an armour’s functionality. This will remain a fantasy genre, and armour in the Guild Wars series is known to be more of a fashion and aesthetic thing than anything else, but for most armour sets, functionality should at least be considered. It’s perfectly cool if there are some oddly non-functional armour sets, but they should be the odd ones out. There are some bad perpetrators of this in the market.

So what has Guild Wars 2 got right? Well, overall, we have a lot of non-revealing armour sets. That’s good, but I’m sure a better balance between revealing and non-revealing armour can be found. The vast majority of armour sets is functional, so hooray. Topping that, most revealing sets are fairly tasteful, with some exceptions here and there. But tastefulness is rather subjective, so I’m sure a middle path can be found (some people find everything that shows an inch of skin untasteful, and some people don’t mind buttnakedness. Let’s find middle ground indeed). The true problem that remains is the dimorphism between men and women. Men are still entirely clad for the majority of sets in which women aren’t entirely clad. This needs to be addressed, for it’s hurtful to both sexes. To you feminists out there: Don’t take that sentence offensively. I recognise the hurt to the female gender, but to ignore male hurt in the spirit of alleviating women’s suffering is a bit sexist to say the least.

So I’m gone for two pages and this has turned out a little silly

Let’s rephrase: I’m a gender egalitarian, not a feminist. This means that nothing I say has the intent of being sexist against either sex/gender/what have you. This, to me, is a better viewpoint to take than the feminist viewpoint of solely abolishing sexism against women, especially when some feminists justify that viewpoint as follows: By abolishing sexism against women, men profit too. While I’m sure there’s some merit to that, that does not in the least justify feminism’s blindness for the other 50%.

But anyway, that was a little ramble on ideologies. Something for feminists to chew on while I carry on with the topic at hand: Armour in video games. Actually, I’ll narrow it down a little: Armour in Guild Wars 2. I want nothing to do with other video games, because I have little experience with other games, and they really shouldn’t matter when debating armour in GW2.

So what’s the phemonenom, then? In light armour, females get armour that reveals significantly more skin than males. In medium and heavy armour, things tend to be a little more equal, but neither of the sexes get any revealing armour.

So here’s the question I want to tackle first: Is revealing armour “sexual” or “offensive”? No, neither. This is and has always been a fantasy setting, and revealing armour is one of the archetypes within the fantasy genre. This normally wouldn’t cause a lot of hassle if we saw men walking around in loincloths, but people tend to be more sensitive about women if they’re portrayed as such. How comes? They draw comparisons to real life where there’s a stigma on skimpily clothed girls. While I have some doubts about whether society forces these girls to dress as such, society frowns upon the phenomenom. But there is nothing inherently wrong with revealing clothes in fantasy settings.

But here’s the issue at hand I’ve described earlier. Women – and women almost exclusively – get access to revealing clothes. This is sexist on the basis that one gender is differentiated in comparison to the other. Feminists will have you believe that only women suffer from any form of sexism, and that this is obviously the same case with this scenario. I kind of don’t believe that. I believe that both sexes suffer losses from this phenomenom. While women are sexualised to some extent, men are desexualised. Neither of the two is ideal. Some women aren’t comfortable when sexualised, and the desexualisation of men isn’t very pretty either. This turns men into asexual robots, and that’s rather bland.

So here’s the solution proposed by feminists: Remove revealing armour (or in some cases; remove sexually oriented armour, while keeping armour that even though it shows skin, stays fashionable). Surely it’s the wrongdoer, because it objectifies women in relation to men. This assumption is… Meh. I mean, sure, we can go ahead and remove revealing armour, but the problem is that there’s a demand for it. While one person may not like such armour, there certainly is a demand for it. And though I truly hate economy, one does not simply disagree with the market unless it becomes absolutely ethically unacceptable. Putting video game characters in funny dresses isn’t exactly ethically unacceptable, though.

So here’s what should happen instead, seeing as revealing armour isn’t going to go away. First, make revealing armour tasteful. Winged armour – while very elegant to some degree – isn’t exactly appropriate. Tier 3 human armour (light) features a bra (imeanwhat). Guild Wars 1 had a lot of revealing armour sets that were very fashionable, even though some of them showed more skin than some of the unfashionable items in GW2 (particularly ritualist armour, which was godly). So let’s take a hint from GW1.

Second, if an armour set is revealing for one gender, make it (almost) equally revealing for the other gender. I don’t want to penalise femininity or masculinity, but a balance ought to be found between the two when designing a single armour set for both genders. Everybody benefits from this, because it immediately stops the levels of sexism (both genders are treated equally), and stimulates sexualisation for both genders (and therefore stops desexualisation of men). The gladiator armour set in GW2 does this fairly well, but GW1 did this better once more, especially when looking at paragon and ritualist armour.

Yeah right. You’re twisting facts, Malafide. Dare tell me that trolls, minotaurs and ettins aren’t male. I’ve set my game language to French for educative purposes, and have found that most monsters lack female counterparts (the French language is more strict on gender, so the noun by which monsters are labelled is often indicative for their gender).

The fact of the matter is that there’s an unbelievable gap in men taking on the role of “primitive monster” versus women taking on that role. And I dare say that being portrayed as a primitive monster is somewhat more offensive than being portrayed as a pretty doll. But I’m not arguing that. I’m arguing that this role should be taken up by women, too, to undo the male exclusivity and lessen the harmfulness. In the same manner, if men take up the role women are depicted in, the presumed offensiveness will lessen, for the discrimination on the basis of sex is taken away.

And no, I’m not going to search for other games to further prove my point. This is a GW2 forum, and I’d like to keep it that way. Any pathetic soul can come up with a giant list of examples from the huge amount of games available to supposedly prove a point, and I’m not going to be that pathetic soul.

But my point remains, the role of “monster” is almost exclusively filled in by male characters. That’s arguably sexist. And I won’t rest until misandrist woman-supporters hold their horses for a moment and see that the world isn’t exclusively misogynist, but hateful of both genders.

I know this. There are lies, there are big lies, and then there’s statistics. But the statistics I quoted at least showed that male victims of domestic violence aren’t merely marginal. A minister for women and equality wouldn’t show up to a radio show on the subject of domestic violence against men because that would “make it seem like male victims exist”. A feminist then went on to say that male domestic violence victimhood is limited to men complaining about having had their fists bruised when they assaulted their wives’ faces.

The offensive stereotype is that solely men are depicted as incredibly dumb jotun, not women. Women aren’t depicted as dumb at all, and are left out of the picture entirely. But sure, I’ll come up with more examples. All trolls in GW2 are male. Most antagonists in video games are male (not GW2, even though all dragons are male so far as I know). Most members of evil factions are male (In GW Factions: Am Fah, Jade Brotherhood). Most monsters are male (In GW1; mursaat, afflicted, minotaurs, centaur, charr, dredge, tengu, jotun, naga, grawls, ogres and so forth). These are all evil stereotypes that feature exclusively men. You’ll notice that most of these monsters are primitive, therefore possibly strengthening the stereotype that men are primitive.

“Negative” stereotypes will remain, for there will always be a need for negative characters. We must allow both men and women to take on a role from all spectrums of negative characters, rather than limit several stereotypes to women, and several stereotypes to men. Eradicating stereotypes is not an option.

On the domestic violence topic, I suggest you educate yourself:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/sep/05/men-victims-domestic-violence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt5BRcsOyy0

More than 40% of domestic violence victims are male. They’re not provided with even half the support women receive.

Yet you fail to see how the presumed stereotypes are related. You assume per default that one sex is always better off than the other. That’s simply not how it works. Society is more cruel than that, and neither of the sexes are ever better off. Men and women are both very much objectified in video games, but in different manners. While women are depicted as so-called sex objects as feminists will have you call them, a gazillion men are portrayed as utterly dumb characters. Do you know the jotun? Not a single female jotun can be found in the game. This may be considered unfair towards men, as they are the sole sex portrayed as such.

See there, two instances of objectification in video games. You may either tackle both at once, or focus only on women so that men are pathetically left behind. That’d be despicable. And the solution is not to ban dumb characters, or to ban sexy characters, but to permit both sexes to take on the role of dumb characters and sexy characters. Because – one way or another – the concepts “dumb” and “sexy” in characters will stay. The challenge is not to make the concepts gender-related, and focusing on one gender only is only going to make matters worse for the ignored gender.

You simply cannot take a stance for women and ignore men. That’s assuming the genders are opposing factions, while they’re not. A real-world example would be domestic violence. While the issue used to be gender-neutral, feminists took matters in their own hands and stereotyped domestic violence as harm being inflicted upon women and children by men. Resultatively, women got heaps upon heaps of government-funded help, and domestically abused men struggle in court to even be recognised as victims, let alone receive any help. This while the ratio of men/women victimised by domestic violence is approximately 50/50.

That’s what happens when you focus on one sex. Had the issue been tackled with both sexes in consideration, we would’ve been better off. I cannot stress this enough; you cannot simply ignore 50 per cent of the population when taking a stance on something. You must take both sexes into account when dealing with sexism, and see what can be done to tackle both of their issues in one go. The solution for the matter at hand? Depict more women in traditional men’s roles, and depict more men in traditional women’s roles. This can be done in one go, rather than cause an imbalance by only putting women in men’s roles, denying men of their right to be in women’s roles.

I have more problems with this line of yours, Malafide, than your entire viewpoint: " I’m not offended by it, so I don’t see any reason to attack that particular one" paired with " I would attack any offensive stereotype, if I considered it to be offensive at all."

First, something needn’t be offensive to be harmful.

Second, you’re not the bloody centre of the world. Your judgement of offensiveness means nothing.

Invisible bags.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Rubykuby.3427:

You, too, ignore male objectification.

Yes I do. Because like I said, I pick my battles. I attack what bothers me the most. And currently, the number of cases in video games of men being objectified, is next to none (so I ignore it). While there are tons of examples of women being objectified (so I have something to say about it). And sure there are also cases of female characters that aren’t objectified, but that’s not what I’m attacking. So what does it matter?

If you feel that male objectification also needs to be attacked, then feel free to do so. But it’s not my battle. And I don’t see any reason why it should be. After all, I didn’t take any position in gender equality.

You are well aware of how inherently flawed “picking your battles” is? You want to tackle presumed sexism, and do this by focusing on one sex only. I mean what? Not only do you focus on one sex only, you don’t open your mind at all to the other sex’s problems with objectification.

Gender issues involve two genders. Tackle both genders at once, not one at a time.

edit:

Mirta.5029:

Mirta.5029:

Even them portrayed as strong is objectifying.

That is also a stereotype yes. Not an offensive stereotype, but a stereotype none the less. I’m not offended by it, so I don’t see any reason to attack that particular one.

Wow. Just wow. What kind of logic is this? “I’m not offended by people making fun of homosexuals because I’m not homosexual, so I’m not recognising there is a problem.” What on Earth? Open up your mind, and realise that the “strong” stereotype can be very harmful if you don’t fit the picture.

So? If you’re rolling a ranger, you’re agreeing with the fact that you’ll have a pet. It’s that simple.

“Female point of view”. See, this is where you’re going astray already. There is no such thing as a female point of view. Surprise surprise, women are individuals, too, and have individual viewpoints. There is no collective female point of view, so convenient as that would be towards your cause.

You, too, ignore male objectification.

And you don’t take into account the ratio of objectified women versus non-objectified women. Objectification is not inherently damaging nor inherently evil. Objectification can be a very valid move. I’m a writer; I’ve objectified a woman to the level of a digital pocket pet in a plot I’m working on. Does that mean my work is now sexist and despicable? Not at all, especially if you note that it’s the digital pocket pet who ends up as the winner. The woman in my plot is useless entirely on her own, but serves a massive central role in the plot. As a matter of fact, I hide the fact that the woman is useless to the best of my ability as a facade, to keep the main character and the audience blind to the fact that she’s disposable.

Why is that character a woman? Per chance. The previous work I wrote featured an oddly sophisticated girl. So I started out with the idea of a male protagonist for the next work, and to keep in line with heterosexuality, the useless character became a woman. I could’ve chosen a female protagonist again and written a male digital pocket pet, but I didn’t want to.

So there, I’ve objectified a character, and I feel no regret, for it fits the plot. Objectification isn’t bad, only for so long as it happens for a good reason, and so long as it doesn’t happen exclusively to one sex. And you’re too blind to see that men, too, are objectified. In other ways entirely, but objectified nonetheless.

But again, you see only female objectification. You fail to see the heaps upon heaps of female characters that are anything but objectified, and the heaps upon heaps of male characters that are indeed objectified.

So I’m currently torn between two worlds, and I’ve been saving up for a commander’s compendium to be able to lead a zerg every now and then when the regular commanders are asleep. If I buy a commander’s compendium in the near future, and then transfer to another world, would I still be able to toggle commander status?

We live in a different zeitgeist now. Second wave feminism has come along, and women have gained a lot of universal human rights a tad later than men did. Which, hey, was cool. But third wave feminism is lunatic. And you say you’re not a feminist, but every non-argument you’ve so far pulled into this argument has been the default feminist argument of “women have it worse”. Both sexes have it bad; approach the problem from both sides for the love of God.

This whole women are consistently portrayed as sex objects? You have tunnelvision. If all you’re seeing in women in video games is sexual objectification, you’re blind. There are heaps upon heaps of female characters that are anything but sex objects, but you choose to blindly limit your argument to the characters that are. But what of men? Surely their position must be ideal? No, not at all. Men are consistently portrayed as stereotypical white knights, “ME SMASH” characters, evil overlords, rambos, vague mysterious rogue characters and general bad guys. Are all male characters portrayed as such? Nah. I’m glad. But it is typically men who are any of these characters. Female evil overlords are rare (I love Faolain though), and female rambos simply don’t exist.

But surely, the above list of men has more variety than the single thing women get thrown at them? Nope. Women are generally portrayed as the following characters: Sex objects, sweet dolls, foul witches, dextrous assassins, caring priestesses, and so forth. There’s enough variety; it’s just different. But feminism has it that everything that is different is disadvantageous for women, which is ridiculous. But the thing is that “sex objects” are a little different from the rest. “Sex object” isn’t an occupation, whereas dextrous assassinhood clearly is. This can be easily explained.

Men are typically judged by their occupation. Women have adopted this due to second wave feminism. Women – before that point in time – were more likely to be judged by their looks and personality, because their occupation was generally always housekeeper. Both ways of judgement have their pros and cons. But it is my belief that feminism is utterly stupid for trying to tell people that women mustn’t be judged by their looks or personality. It is my belief that it is the men who are victimised because they are solely judged by their occupation, and are in dire need of more ways to be judged. There is nothing inherently wrong about judging a person by their looks. It starts to become a problem when people are blind enough to only judge by looks. And ideally, we’d only judge on personality, but that’s too farfetched for today’s society.

The truth is that women in video games are just fine. Not a majority, but a minority of female characters are portrayed as sex objects. Is the position of women in video games ideal? Nah, but neither is the men’s position. They’ll improve over time. Things are balancing out since the early days of video gaming, but the sex objects you so hate will most likely always remain, because they are liked by male and female players alike. Sure, some people may not like them, but that’s what we have variety for. For example, I don’t like axes as weapons. Never have, never will. But to suddenly hate the ranger profession because they have axes available to them or even start with axes is lunacy. The same goes for women in video games (it’s funny because I just objectified women to the level of an axe).

Malafide, I have one problem with this discussion.

You are basing all your arguments on the feminist assumption I presented to you in my first post, and I will repeat again: Feminism assumes that in cases of gender discrimination, women always get the short end of the stick. As such, feminism strives for equality for women in relation to men. Gender egalitarianism assumes that in cases of gender discrimination, both sides get the short end of the stick. As such, gender egalitarianism strives for equality for both sides equally.

You simply don’t open your eyes to the egalitarian viewpoint. You’ve quite bluntly stated to me that women have it worse in video games, without putting any thought behind what I’d just said. If you had retreated from the discussion for a moment and thought hard on the egalitarian point of view, maybe you would have come to a better – or at least more rational – conclusion. The best example of what I’d just said is, again, Warren Farrell’s quote: “Men’s greatest weakness is their facade of strength, and women’s greatest strength is their facade of weakness.”

Women are portrayed as weak [in relation to men]. Biologically, there is some merit to that, but fine, we’ll drop biology for a moment. Because women are portrayed as weak, this means men must be stronger. What you’re doing is this: “But what about the poor strong women who don’t fit the picture?” What I’m doing is this: “But what about the poor strong women and poor weak men who don’t fit the picture?” Which of either is less sexist? The feminist approach is one-sided and flawed. Feminism claims to care about men every now and then, but truly, they don’t.

Moreso, you have this default assumption that women are consistently portrayed as sex objects in video games. Feminists love sexual objectification. It’s the “get out of jail” free card for any argument. How so? Because, generally and sadly so, men and women are treated differently per societal standards. Feminism always assumes that men have it better, so they wish women be treated more like men. Truth is? Men have never had it better than women historically: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LkYDpQQVJ0 (I’m neither a libertarian nor an MRA, but it’s a good video)

Men have been the infamous scum of the earth. They worked hard, sometimes to death, to support their wives, kids and elderly parents at home. Feminists view this phenomenom as such: “OMG! Women weren’t allowed to work? That’s blasphemy!” But truly, they have no idea what they’re saying. The women didn’t want to work; they had a family to look after, and a lot of technology to make things quicker hadn’t been invented yet. But truly, what the anecdote shows is sexual objectification. Men were mere disposable work forces, whilst women were somewhat more valuable housekeepers. And men loved their wives even back then. People often forget that the concept of love is timeless. It’s not like these men were extremely abusive to their wives, though of course there have been exceptions. And is it perhaps true that husbands had a superior say over their wives? Yes. Is this sexist? Yes. Is this unjustifiable? No. The men worked extremely hard, and I’d say it was their right to determine what happens with the money he worked for, and what happens with the things he spent money on. This is, of course, only applicable in that zeitgeist.

Drakes hardly ever die. Canines die more easily. Canines do, however, have some CC capabilities and (I believe) a little more DPS. Then again, drakes do fair damage through their F2 skill.

Hard decision! I actually use a fern hound and an ice drake simultaneously to get the best of both.

In WvW, definitely drake though, because they simply don’t die. Though I’d actually root for any ranged pet in WvW.

Martacus.4085:

Gender =/= Sex. The Sylvari have no sex, but they do have genders as gender is a cultural construct.

Wrong. Sylvari do not have genders, for they live in a truly gender-neutral society.

Hey, you’re right :o

Tropes aren’t shallow writing tools. If you’re familiar with literature, tropes are fantastic elements that can be subtly referenced and used extremely well. In this day and age, however, tropes are often victims of gangrape. People see a trope, think it’s awesome and simple to implement, and stuff it somewhere without any thought behind it. Extra Credits did an episode on this, but I can’t find it.

You say that Guild Wars stumbles with sexy outfits. You couldn’t be more wrong. I think Guild Wars has created an amazing game that, in addition to the many ways it has already presented characters, also implements the more sexualised presentation for whoever finds that attractive. And there is nothing wrong with that, don’t you get that? It has its place entirely, and ANet has so far been extremely resourceful.

You’re kicking at a stereotype that isn’t inherently bad, let alone overused in GW2. It’s good when implemented well, and I can’t see how GW2’s implementation is in any way harmful. It’s not front and centre, it’s not stuffed down your throat and it’s not demeaning. What more do you want? The complete eradication of sexualisation in video games? Yeah, right. That’s not going to work. Not because of horny teens who like to look at pixels on their screen, but because sexualisation can be implemented really well. Would sylvari be the same if none of their cultural armour showed any revealing skin (or well, fabric)? Would the “siren” trope be the same if the sirens weren’t sexually attractive?

That would be eroticising.

And I never said such a thing? I never said women aren’t presented in a sexual manner in video games, denying such would be moronic. What I do say, however, is that the amount of sexualisation has decreased immensely over time. Which, hey, is great. But the assumption that sexualisation in and of itself is bad is stupid. The supposed “tropes” you’re trying hard to smash aren’t inherently evil. They become distasteful when they’re misused, however. Tropes exist and stick around for good reasons. It becomes an issue when inexperienced people put their hands on tropes merely because they appear to be easy concepts, however.

There’s a place for everything.

I’m equating sex appeal to sexualisation. Dressing revealingly (your definition of sexualisation, apparently) is women’s supposed sex appeal, and wealth and aptness are men’s supposed sex appeal. The standards of sex appeal are usually contemporary and dynamic.

Actually, I’ll give you the definition of sexualisation as per Wiktionary:
“The act or process of sexualising.”

To sexualise:
“To make sexual.”

Sexual:
“Of or relating to sexual orientations, sexual identity or preferences with respect to sexual intercourse.”

Which sounds pretty close to sex appeal, don’t it?

Also, this is a GW2 forum. Using sexualisation from other games to prove your point here is silly, especially if the game comes from a non-Western country.

@Leo G See, this is what I dislike. “Let’s not reach in the other direction”. When discussing sexes, one must always focus on women, and women only. So much mentioning the male gender is considered off-topic immediately. No, of course Logan wasn’t sexualised intentionally by the writer. And I don’t oppose Logan’s sexualisation. I think he’s a good character, sexualised or not, even though he’s a bit silly at times.

He is, however, idealised. He’s strong, independent, confident and caring [towards women/the Queen]. And these very ideals are one means of sexualising men.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

This is a pretty big misconception. Suppose male characters would be consistently be portrayed wearing a cod piece, and not much more. Would you not agree that that is a pretty offensive stereotype? It doesn’t matter if “some” people approve of the stereotype. What matters is that it is an offensive stereotype.

There is a big difference between two genders being depicted differently, and one being depicted in a bad light, while the other is depicted normally. So your comparison really doesn’t apply.

I have a quote to prove you wrong. This quote should also prove why Logan Thackeray is sexualised.

But the problem is the feminist assumption that in case of sexism, women always get the short end of the stick. Like I’ve said before, I’m a gender egalitarian, and assume both genders have it equally bad until proven otherwise. But clearly, male characters don’t walk around with a gigantic sex appeal? That’s debatable, actually. Most male characters are muscular, and per today’s standards, being muscular as a man is a major sex appeal. But muscles clearly don’t make up quite enough for the amount of sex appeal female characters tend to have to endure.

So, with GirlWritesWhat as source for this one, men make up sex appeal differently entirely. While women’s sex appeal is judged on the basis of their physical appearance, men’s sex appeal is largely judged on the basis of their status and abilities. A man in a suit is not attractive because suits are divine to look at, not at all. A man in a suit is attractive because suits indicate wealth. Similarly, muscular men aren’t attractive because muscles are awesome, but because muscles indicate strength, and strength enhances the man’s abilities. Video games know this, and portray men as apt or wealthy as possible, with lesser regard for physical appearance. Therefore, men in video games aren’t completely clad because it protects them better, but because it’s more imposing and gives the illusion of better performance.

Norn men don’t look very attractive if we dress them down into their undies, apart from perhaps their bulks of muscles. What makes norn men attractive is their incredible aptness. Norn men appear unshakable in combat, and like an opponent to fear. They don’t simply “look” attractive, they are attractive through the manner in which they appear to act.

So women are judged solely on physical looks, and men are judged solely on their wealth and aptness. Video games know both of these things, and make women’s bodies sexy and visible, and buff men’s bodies beyond realism, paired with gear that makes them look powerful. Both suffer from sexism in that regard.

Conclusively, “being put in a bad light” is highly subjective.

You also mention that the debate on whether something is sexist is personal opinion. That’s bullkitten. Who taught you that? Sexism is discrimination on the basis of gender. If there is an obvious different treatment of one gender in relation to the other, one may call such sexist. But truthfully, the genders aren’t treated quite so differently when we consider only the ends, and not the means.

And no, women aren’t just portrayed as objects of desire. Are you nuts? GW2 has enough women who are portrayed as individual characters who have nothing sexualised about them. Which is great! But sexualisation isn’t forbidden. It’s still a valid tool for making a female character, much like it’s valid to sexualise male characters. Men – and I’ll stress this again – are sexualised through different means entirely, though.

You also claim you defend the side of women, and that was my point entirely. There is no such thing as a unified female opinion. Women have individualised, so shared interest on the basis of gender simply doesn’t exist anymore.

^ No name.

Faenon.

Mad Queen Malafide.7512:

Rubykuby.3427:

Women aren’t victimised if women agree to the way their characters are portrayed, and quite frankly, a proportional amount of women do.

And also a proportional amount of women don’t. That doesn’t change anything about the gender stereotype that is being presented. And I think a majority of female gamers would actually be against this sort of stereotyping (and perhaps a minority of male gamers).

What? This makes no sense, and akin to the following: Female vocals in Pop songs differ from male vocals in Pop songs. Not because the voices sound different, and not because the tones have a higher pitch, but because the general musical composition of both vocals differ heavily. This is sexist. Some women do not like the way female vocals work in Pop songs, and want more masculine vocals of female singers.

Yeah, that makes no sense. What you’re doing is exactly the same. And guess what? There is some slight amount of merit to not liking feminine vocals in Pop songs. Some people may be more attracted to the masculine composition of vocals, and that’s fine. They may listen to male singers, or female singers who happen to have a masculine vocal composition. The same goes reversely. If you like female vocals, you may listen to female singers, or men who “sing like a girl”, as James Blunt put it. That aside, James Blunt is a Soft Rock singer, but I’m using Pop for convenience.

You’re assuming that the stereotype is sexist, yet you have nothing to back that up with. The only thing you’re clinging onto is the illusion that only women are depicted sexually in video games, which I’ve proved not to be true (with sources) a few posts back. I’ll repeat; men are sexually depicted in different ways entirely, and are tied to different standards than women are. Logan Thackeray is a highly sexualised character, despite barely showing any skin.

You claim you’re “defending women”, which is a feminist illusion. There is no such thing as defending women, at least not anymore, for feminism itself has instated the individualisation of the female sex. Women are every bit as diverse as men, and GW2 has done a fantastic job in showing diversity everywhere. The fact GW2 still has sexually appealing armour doesn’t mean it’s being sexist, it means that it, too, includes that bit of diversity among many other alternatives.

Notwithstanding, you’re cherrypicking parts of my posts to your own convenience. You leave out my strongest of arguments without so much mentioning them. As a matter of fact, you ignore my core suggestions time after time, which I conveniently put at the end of almost every post.