This pretty much summed up my entire opinion on the matter in one sentence. Sexualizing or hyper-feminizing a female character is, to my mind, far less of an insult to women than making her a sexless, meaningless, personality-free cipher.
Both spellings are acceptable. Generally the ‘z’ is preferred in the U.S., but the ‘s’ is preferred in other countries.
M’kay. Corrected it anyways.
not to be an ass or anything, but don’t you kinda think that the >_< face is a little harsh?
The moment you presumed that you could speak to Alex Ahad’s motivation drawing his own characters is the moment your argument fails. There is no possible way that you could know that the pantyshots in Skullgirls was a priority in the art. If the basis for your argument on Skullgirls being demeaning is Alex Ahad’s motivation, then you pretty much don’t have a credible argument.
The pantyshots in the game are in reasonable context, and based on the design of the character’s outfit. It’s not constant, it’s not the focus or main feature of any of the characters (the theme is monster/horror themed girls, not pantyshot girls), not all of the characters display them.
And I’m still waiting on the explanation of why the sexualization of fictional female characters is at all demeaning to women. ‘Male gaze’ doesn’t wash in this case, because although sexualization exists in the game, it’s never been the primary focus of the art direction (which I claim by virtue of the majority of Skullgirls’ art NOT being sexually provocative). Hyper-sexualization presented as the sole purpose of a female character is the concept of ‘male gaze’, and is demeaning to women because it reduces the character to nothing more than an object to be lusted after. Unless you can make an argument showing that sexualization is the sole purpose of the characters, it’s not demeaning to women.
Well the thread title only mentioned the former. I’d say its fairly obviously not sexist, but I guess to be fair I was pussyfooting around the opinion that I consider the game fairly overtly sexual. Obviously I haven’t played the game but I don’t see a reason that the schoolgirl needs molesting and boob pokes are certainly not American how do you dos. But as you say, there’s really no argument here then. Its not like so over the top as to be offensive, so, yeah - can’t really be bothered. The classy aspect I was refering too was that Noel was presumably a character that would want to avoid panty shots and thus somehow magically does, whereas the more bold Litchi and less caring Tao didn’t. I just thought it was neat.
As an aside: your post made me realize this game has some seriously diehard fans. I haven’t really followed the game much, doesn’t really seem like my thing - but on a forum where no one can seem to be bothered to like any of the damn games they play its kinda refreshing. Kudos.
it’s a fighting game
not a panty game
I don’t even think they MAKE panty games. do they?
it’s not even that I’m analyzing Ahad himself. it’s like, a basic artistic observation of the game: there’s really no reason to think that the pantyshots in Skullgirls represent anything other than “sexualization for sexualization’s sake, but also under the guise of being at least moderately ‘warranted’ due to physics.” if they represent something else to you (apparently they represent whimsy and realism alone or something), that’s fine, but that just doesn’t seem like a feasible interpretation to me.
it’s not some textbook instance of it or anything, but the same principles apply. and it’s like this is a binary, where you’re either “completely reducing females to sex objects, or not reducing them at all.” it’s possible to be “kind of” sexist! 
No. I hate you. You aren’t actually explaining WHY things reduce woman or are demeaning, you just keep repeating yourself and now are backpedaling into a “somewhat” position without ever giving a good reason.
Being sexy does not inherently make you a sex object. It also has to do with vulnerability, humiliation, or a total lack of a personality.
It’s possible for you to perceive something as sexist, sure. But unless you can give a credible argument, it’s not something that you can accurately accuse something/someone of. How does the principle apply here? How is the sex appeal of some of the cast reducing them to sex objects at all? If you’re actually trying to discuss this, instead of just making baseless accusations on nothing more than personal opinion, then you need more than smilies for people to get your reasoning as to how Skullgirls is “kind of” sexist.
“Sexualization for sexualization’s sake”? I’m not following what you mean by that. If all you’re doing is pointing out that pantyshots are sexualization, sure of course it is. But is it the main purpose of the character? No. If not, then how is adding sex appeal to a character at all demeaning? ‘Male gaze’ is about objectifying women as sex objects. If you’re not saying that Skullgirls is doing that, then what are you talking about?
If your opinion is that the art in Skullgirls objectifies women/is sexist/is demeaning or whatever, you’re entitled to it. My opinion is that that’s bullshit, and I can use reasoning and examples to explain why I think that’s bullshit (and I have). So, as this is supposed to be a discussion, I ask anyone who finds Skullgirls demeaning towards women to clearly explain how. If you can’t, that just goes to show why the very idea is bullshit. It really is that simple.
The day we shame people for any type of sexuality is the day the terrorists win.
I’m not backpedaling; I’m trying to do you a favor by not using “extreme” terminology like “sexist,” “demeaning,” “rude,” or whatever other words you happen to find unacceptable in the context of this discussion. Using those words just causes people to split hairs and it’s like, really really tiring, especially after encountering posts like these.
At this point I’m just trying to communicate that it’s pretty clear that Skullgirls includes sexualization that exists purely for sexualization’s sake, and only in the case of female characters. To some people (like me), describing that as “sexist” is like, a completely natural and trivial thing to do. It’s like the most obvious thing ever! But since many of you are so intent on splitting hairs with definitions of the word “demeaning” or whatever, I’m finding it difficult to justify using those terms in the first place. As soon as I mention “sexism,” you’re just going to freak out and ask for proof that Skullgirls fits whatever your special little definition of “sexism” is!
So I’m not even going to go there anymore: let’s not call it “demeaning” or “sexist,” let’s just call it “sexualization for sexualization’s sake in the case of females only!”
Isn’t it pretty clear that this is, in fact, what’s going on in Skullgirls, with the numerous pantyshots being a major example? And if so, don’t you think that’s–to be as vague as possible–“problematic?”
Also, nice potshot there! Way to defend the Skullgirls name by being… needlessly antagonistic?
It doesn’t matter if it’s the main purpose of the character. I’m not saying that the characters are sex objects, just that they’re being objectified. What you’re essentially saying here is that I could go make a loosely-based-on-history TV series starring Martha Washington, and have her fall down and ~realistically~ show her panties to the camera at various intervals, and that won’t be a problem because it isn’t the main purpose of the character?
If there isn’t a purpose for it other than “heh panties are awesome, LET’S SEE WHO AGREES,” then it’s just this weird distraction from other, substantive aspects of the character. You can have the coolest female character ever, but when Ghost in the Shell randomly has the camera halfway enveloped by the protagonist’s ass, it’s annoying, it’s confusing, it’s demeaning and it’s objectifying. It doesn’t mean the character in question isn’t still interesting, and she certainly isn’t a full-blown object, but that isn’t the point! The point is that the act of emphasizing that aspect of the character in the first place, seemingly without reason, is bad regardless of the character’s more relevant facets.
See, but here’s the thing. It’s not that you’re saying that “Skullgirls isn’t demeaning towards women.” The arguments you’re making are pretty much denying the existence of male gaze wholesale. You’re coming from outer space on this one, man (or from your perspective, maybe I am. Either way). So yeah, it’s taken a while for me to explain why these things are demeaning in a specific sort of way (I think I gave a satisfactory answer in the above paragraph, but we’ll see what you think, ha). But that’s less because there aren’t explanations and more because I have so much to (try to) explain in the first place!
Pretty sure there’s one like that for Xbox 360, Japan only.
oh look i found my parent’s credit card
In all seriousness, I’m almost positive the intent of the game is be about fighters fighting. It’s like how Dance Dance Revolution is primarily about Dance Dancing. Anything else is secondary. If you find some part of it sexy, that’s ok. I myself have a crippling fetish for scrolling arrows, so I love DDR that much more.
Speaking of music games, beatmania has some nice characters in it.
“Special little definition”? Post what YOUR definition of sexism is. Here’s what I’m operating off of:
Which is a silly argument. Of course it’s females only. THE CAST IS ALL FEMALE! If you amend that to simply “sexualization for sexualization’s sake”, nobody’s really arguing that that’s not in the game. (Besides, what other sake does sex appeal have other then ‘sex appeal’?) The response to this is simply “It’s not overbearing, it’s not a focal point of the characters, it’s not the purpose of the game. It has sexualization, so what?”
Why are you being as vague as possible when you’re asked to be specific? No, I don’t think it’s problematic. Why is some of the characters having a few attacks that reveal their panties problematic? Explain why this is an issue, clearly. I’m not looking for hypothetical situations that are unproven, I don’t care if you think someone just might get offended. Finding something offensive is entirely based on individual perception, and completely subjective.
[media=youtube]cycXuYzmzNg[/media]
Word mincing. And incorrect besides.
At the heart of the matter, it’s impossible to objectify the characters in Skullgirls, due to the fact that they aren’t real people. Even if they were, however, there is no context in which they are reduced to “merely as an instrument (object) towards one’s sexual pleasure”
Incorrect. The purpose of you having her fall down and show her panties is nothing more than sexual gratification, because you specifically went out of your way to position the camera such that the audience could see, and presumably don’t have a reason for the fall outside of that. In Skullgirls there are a few attacks which allow the viewer to see a character’s panties, but it’s just another part of a scene in which the character’s are flipping around and high kicking in short skirts. It’s not the focus of the camera (as the camera retains standard view), it’s not the focus of the character design, it’s not the purpose of the attack, it’s simply present, on characters that are sexualized caricatures of women, not real women. So what?
What’s so bad about it? Motoko Kusanagi isn’t real, so objectification has no meaning in regards to her. You can take her depiction as commentary on women in general, which is the only way it can be demeaning, but that’s entirely subjective i.e., your opinion. It’s also internalizing, which is really stupid to do with fictional characters IMO, but that’s just my opinion, despite how much sense it may make.
You used a very good word there: emphasizing. With GitS, it’s clear that Motoko Kusanagi’s ass in such a scene is emphasized. Though I can easily make the argument that that emphasis could have plenty of purpose other than fap material (for example: visual illustration of the fact that Motoko is a character that is sexy, knows it, and uses it as a tool for various purposes), let’s bring it back to Skullgirls.
Explain to me how the pantyshots in the game are at all emphasized, considering they take place in the middle of fast-paced combat. .
As you can clearly see, I’m quite logical in what it is I’m saying. I’m not denying the existence of anything. I’m asking you to show it to me. This is pretty much the process I’m using to show you that the sexism/objectification/demeaning that you thought was oh so obvious is based almost entirely on your personal opinion formed over points ranging from insignificant to imaginary.
You simply don’t have anywhere near as solid an argument as you *think *you do.
And even if you can show me some logical proofing, you still have to explain how sexualization of fictional characters is problematic, how it’s gender discrimination (sexism) when there’s no males to compare it to, and how you or anyone else taking offense to it is Skullgirls’ fault.
If you can do all that, I’ll gladly admit that Skullgirls is derogatory towards women, sexist, or whatever else you can show.
But I’m fairly certain you can’t.
Good Luck!
Good evening thread, can someone update me on the current situation?
Just read my last post, and you have the recent discussion so far.
I had a bigger response typed up, but the electricity went out, yay! Whatever, here’s the gist of it.
I’m operating under the assumption (and also based on concept art and whatnot) that there will be male characters and that they won’t be sexualized like the females are. I might be super totally wrong about that, and it’ll be ridiculously awesome if I am, but somehow I don’t think so. In any case, we’ll just have to wait for male DLC I guess!
To reiterate, I don’t even remotely have a problem with equal-opportunity sexualization. But it seems you wouldn’t have a problem with discriminatory sexualization? Or am I wrong to assume that? If I am, then we kind of completely agree here, with the caveat that you apparently expect the male characters to be sexualized just like the females, ha.
I don’t think I understand. Are you suggesting that art has no impact on culture and society if it just so happens to be fictional? Kusanagi’s ass being in my face isn’t a “commentary,” but, real or not, its implications are clear. Anyway, if you think that making things fictional inherently strips them of their relevance, I really, really can’t be having this discussion with you. Like, that’s alien talk!
pretty big talk coming from someone who thinks “but that’s subjective!!!” is a valid argument in any context~ ^_^;
In all seriousness, this sort of stuff makes you come off as less interested in dialogue and more interested in aggressively defending your point of view at all costs. Good luck with that I suppose, but I’d much rather be talking to someone who actually cares to understand the bigger picture. But do go on, I’d love to hear more about this “logic” thing!
you fellas are still fussed up about all this huh? folk need to settle. give yourselves hernias braining so hard on this jibberjabber.