…
What else is there to say though?
Well at least it’s in its own thread instead of the clogging up the general discussion.
I’m honestly surprised no one has ever made a big fuss over the fact that Filia and Cerebella rely on masculine partners to do all the work for them when they represented the majority of the revealed cast. It’s too late for that now, but the fact that bloggers have touched upon the perceived “sexism” of Skullgirls while ignoring that, pays more credence to the fact that people simply don’t know what the word sexism means. As stated, sexual ≠ sexism. Sexism lies in characterization, the idea that women are lesser or weak; women being derivative of, reliant upon, or in servitude of masculine figures; women being eye candy, objects to be rescued or “won;” all in a manner that suggests that’s the way things ought to be.
Now, could some Skullgirls characters be considered sexual? Absolutely. Can too much sexualization without enough substance be considered sexism in and of itself? Possibly, but it needs to be analyzed on a case-by-case basis.
As stated, Filia and Cerebella rely on masculine partners.
Filia is a moderate offender, I’m not going to argue with that. She relies on Samson much more than Cerebella relies on Vice-Versa. The schoolgirl outfit is a bit much, and Samson’s gluttony has had an obvious effect on her physique and the way the former fits on the latter*. Samson obviously could be using Filia to his own ends, but her actions suggest a coordinated symbiosis and she never exhibits blatant sexualization beyond the occasional wardrobe malfunction.
Cerebella is another moderate offender. She relies on Vice-Versa less than Filia relies on Samson, using her own strength to pummel opponents and occasionally does all the work by swinging Vice-Versa around. Cerebella is a circus performer. Now I went to the circus every year as a child and let me tell you, some of the outfits those performers wore were almost in line with Cerebella’s. From my perspective, the circus is a culturally-significant performance and I’m about as offended by Cerebella’s attire as I am by the eponymous Shantae. The only really sexually-provocative poses are the end of Show Stopper and her Mai Shiranui idle stance, made worse by the size of her breasts†. Her actions are usually acrobatic, and the focal point of her silhouette is almost always the monstrous Vice-Versa.
Ms. Fortune shows a lot of skin, right? Well, take a deeper look at her: she’s quasi-immortal, dismembered, and fights by separating limb-from-limb. Outside of battle, out and about in society, she wears a trench coat to cover up, which she can quickly discard for combat effectiveness.
It wouldn’t make sense for her to wear anything too constricting. Even her leg and ankle coverings could be considered superfluous. Nothing about her actions could be considered sexual.
One could easily draw parallels to Urien, is there really any difference between the two besides the fact that she’s a woman, despite the complete lack of sexualization indicators?
Parasoul shows a little too much leg than what could be considered practical or even comfortable in combat, but that’s all she shows‡. She’s also a powerful leader, intelligent field commander, and able combatant with a distinguished no-nonsense personality.
It’s not even worth mentioning Peacock, Painwheel and the most likely female additions to the roster Double, Marie, Squigly, and Umbrella because they’re so completely devoid of sexualization… and regarding Marie, no, Reverge Labs is not responsible for the depiction of maids by Party City and Brazzers.
Valentine is the worst offender. Even though she’s an obvious play on a classic trope, her exterior is pretty much all sexually provocative§. Her actions in combat are all business, but every chance she gets she’s being suggestive and taunting.
*†‡§ I saved Valentine for last because her and my footnotes bring me to my main point. Skullgirls presents a mixed bag where a grand total of four characters can be considered sexual. That would be 50% of the cast at launch (which is only going to go down as more additions are made) and the degree of sexualization is a sliding scale, from “that skirt isn’t very suited for those kinds of kicks” to “did her win pose just suggest a sexual act?” Is it really that bad? Is the floor so littered with eggshells that no woman may be depicted as sexual, despite the fact that one of driving forces behind feminism is that men and women are both sexual and the expectation of a woman to be a chaste (as well as sexual only for the sake of appeasing men, yes) is systematic oppression? Or is the spotlight being unfairly pointed at Skullgirls for being a new, Western intellectual property with a cast comprised predominantly of women? Underwear is showing in a handful of frames out of thousands… and women have breasts, dear God! Women wear skirts, the most impractically wispy garment ever conceived, breasts move. That’s what makes for interesting animation, exaggerated flow and movements. To brush that under the carpet just to be safe is just nonsense, considering Skullgirls provides fair representation across the board. In that regard, I say Skullgirls isn’t regressive or even the status quo, it’s progressive. Now it’s up to everyone else to progress forward and stop being so shocked by anything that isn’t the same old. We’re never going to get anywhere making more games consisting of 90% men and 10% boring token women, which never provides the opportunity for diversity in the latter.
I’ve personally determined for myself that it isn’t any of our responsibilities to feel offended by Skullgirls. I’ve said my peace, wake me up when T.J. Maximum is added and makes Travis Touchdown look like “Feminist Ryan Gosling.”
http://pub.tenkuu.net/Images/091116_lj_post/other/090619_maximum01.jpg
But here’s the funny part, he wouldn’t rustle any jimmies, because it’s too much in line with what everyone is accustomed to. It’s already been drilled into their heads that sometimes men are gallant heroes, sometimes they’re raunchy assholes, and everything in between.
Excellent post btw, but I just want to point out that Filia and Cerebella have symbiotic relationships with their masculine partners. Samson needs a host to survive, Vice Versa most likely needs Cerebella for something as well. Cerebella/Filia aren’t actually weak in a sense because without them then Samson/Vice Versa would be helpless as well.
If I start talking about general Skullgirls stuff in here will it start a 5 page shitstorm? 
get write up!
interesting point about filia and cerebella, i hadnt even thought about that. i think that the sexism in cerebella is almost nonexistent as she and vice versa have a lot of tandem moves and she does a lot of the work herself. as far as filia and samson, i always saw her as more of a victim than actually relying on him (he is forcing her into this, she doesnt want to be here)
as far as the sexualization of the characters, i mostly agree with you. even though characters arnt always showing skin, the only non-skintight garment outside of peacock are the sleeves on cerebella’s outfit. as far as the unreleased characters, i am not sure we can say much about them until we see more of their animations. while none of them will probably hold a candle to valentine its too early to say either way on them.
@firebranded
if you read what i wrote, i never actually disagreed with you, just the petulant, nonconstructive and dismissive way you decided to respond to things. you have not yet changed my mind that you bring nothing useful to the skullgirls forums in general. also, we have already acknowledged that skullgirls is not the worst offender in this area, if you want to talk about how the presence of male characters changes opinions of games, then im all for it. but please state your arguments in a constructive and inviting manner as opposed to just trying to blow off everyone else and end discussion.
I did apologize in my second post for being blunt about my first response, I thought you would take that as sincerity but I guess not.
Anyway, the lack of male character presence is a major influence on why people perceive Skullgirls the way they do. Social Science states that men generally have an innate superiority/competitive complex when it comes to dealing with women. Men usually don’t like to see women being stronger than them in any way, shape, or form. Which is why a game lacking male characters is bringing up a ton of argument. It’s a direct counter of the “manly man” way things “should be.”
All in all it’s a bunch of male ego hidden beneath a gilded layer of chivalry in my opinion. Alot of guys don’t want SG to succeed because it’s a game where women are the strong ones.
would a game with both genders but in which all the top tier characters were female provoke a similar response? im not sure that is a relevant question because we are talking about an unreleased game so we can only go on appearances and tiers generally are not established until the game is played.
do you think that this desire for SG to fail is more driven by male fright or by brand loyalty?
I’ll take option 3: Stupidity?
I was going to go and write a long ass comment giving my opinion on this topic and trying to set this shit straight… but this says absolutely everything I could have ever thought of (and more), and says it very, VERY well.
hot damn
People actually want to keep being fed the same Capcom crap they bitch about constantly, and oppose the game that actually caters 100% to the competitive community?
Interesting article but I don’t see how it reflects badly on Skullgirls at all. The characters in this game are all obviously flawed with the possible exception of Parasoul, and non of them are really useless except maybe Filia minus Samson.
I agree. I read that and felt that it actually SUPPORTED my opinion on skullgirls.
Parasoul is flawed.
The only people who think it’s sexist are sexists themselves.
The fact that somebody thinks that this game has some kind of bias against a gender is just ridiculous, and the fact that we’re humoring this opinion with a seperate thread to itself is simply inadequate, for lack of a better word.
Renamed the thread. And I repeating it again: it’s not here to encourage sexism talk. It’s here because lots of folks wants to talk about it (and there probably will be more after release) and you can’t really let them roam in GD thread. But I feel like you can’t forbid them from discussing it either. Hence this thread.
Have a nice day.
Thread won.
it’s over guys. it’s finally over.
(also, lulz at all the blatantly stolen moves in that game. wow)
I think Skullgirls is like, obviously sexist, but to be really fair about it, so are the majority of video games (and a ton of media in general too obviously). So it’s definitely annoying that Skullgirls gets singled out for it, and I totally understand why people are therefore so defensive.
That being said: I think Skullgirls is like, obviously sexist! 
You can say that “everything is exaggerated, including the masculinity of male characters, so it’s fair,” but it’s like, since when does exaggeration mean tons of pantyshots or whatever? Like that isn’t something I would conclude about a game that claims to be “heavily influenced by classic cartoons” at all!
Anyway, I’m actually pretty cool with Skullgirls on this end compared to most games. It’s kind of like, Skullgirls’ sexualization is just Alex Ahad doing what he honestly thinks is awesome. With other games it feels like this cynical, “fuck it, let’s give our largely-male consumers what they want” sort of thing. So even though I don’t approve of the female oversexualization in Skullgirls, I like the feeling that it’s at least “honest” about it!
Anyway, please stop being so defensive, at least. Again, I understand being defensive, but people in here are being downright alienating what with the accusations of “white knighting” and “people who think it’s sexist are sexist themselves” stuff.
Oh man. There is one guy. There is one game he’s designed the way he liked. You can buy and play it if you’re like it too. Or you can not buy it if you don’t. What’s the big idea? I can’t see why you should do something differently because someone else said that you are fool. It’s stupid. You’re doing what you want. If ESRB says this game is Teen-appropriate then what’s the problem? Even if the author “isn’t respecting women” or whatnot - it’s HIS friggin’ game. He can do WHATEVER he wants in it. What’s the point of arguing about it? Buy it or no buy it. Or forbid your kids to play it. But I can’t understand why some people should spoil the fun for others. It’s… Just pointless.
PS had anyone ever seen post like “I am woman and I am offended” btw? Or is it only “supposedly” offensive? >_>
-__-
Define sexism.
Explain how sexualization is being sexist.
Explain how pantyshots are sexist.
If you understand that the sexualization of (some!) of the characters is part of Alex Ahad’s style, how is it sexist?
Explain how picking apart an argument is being defensive.
You can think it’s “like, obviously sexist!” all you want, but unless you can explain how (outside of the cast obviously being all-female, which is completely redundant, and if anything is sexist against men, which is not your argument), then it’s completely fair for anyone to dismiss your opinion as nonsense.
It should be easy to prove, if it’s so obvious.
The human body is offensive.