While a minority in this community, and admittedly far too quiet, the “female element” does actually exist. Also, regardless of whether or not you agree with this woman on any level, the fact that she was able to raise that much money in a short amount of time means that people are interested in that issue and are willing to “exercise their voice with their money,” as it were, to see that it does get some sort of a voice. That’s the startling thing about this. Not the content of what she’s saying, but the reaction to the fact that she said it at all. If there hadn’t been so much outrage and vitriol tossed her way in the first place, I doubt she would have succeeded in getting funding. Whether or not it was a ploy for cash, people did throw money at her in support, which indicates to me that they see a problem in how she was treated and/or are curious as to what she has to say.
I didn’t donate to her Kickstarter because I don’t feel any need to fund somebody’s youtube video rants, and I don’t necessarily agree with all of her points, but I also saw a problem in many of the reactions to what she was saying. I certainly see a problem with it being inferred that women shouldn’t voice their opinions because they’re in the minority, so much so that I’ve opted to participate solely in response to that one statement. As more women participate in the community, you’re going to hear their opinions, and sometimes they won’t be in line with yours. Which is fine, because that’s basically how discussion works, but the level of defensiveness, heated and knee-jerk reactions to this topic is kind of telling, and makes me curious as to what exactly is so threatening here.
then stop being a minority. you can’t expect to be coddled because a small amount of you female’s participate in a male dominated market (The act of playing games doesn’t constitute participation, its only a small portion of the battle)
I saw ILLsomthing statistics, if they constitute 46% of the over all purchasing power (if so, they aren’t a minority anymore), of that 46%, how many of those female’s are buying games aimed directly at male’s. How many extra CoD, Halo, GoW, Tomb Raider, etc are bought by female’s? companies are going to see that yes, female’s now constitute 46% of the market, but are buying crap that isn’t even marketed to them. And they still are buying games that objectify (if that shit even exists) women, so why stop if all they do is complain yet don’t do anything about it. Women shouldn’t voice their opinions out on the open by ranting. No one want’s to hear that shit, voice your opinion with your wallet’s or by entering the business and doing something about it. Because frankly, you’re doing it wrong if you aren’t using your wallet, or entering the industry to market “female friendly” games to publishers. Sitting there and expecting affirmative action is pretty fucking stupid and does nothing to address the issue, it rather make’s it worse.
P.S, anybody can raise a lot of money for dumb causes. Her making money doesn’t dictate that there is a lot of people interested, it show’s that there are people interested. If there was real movement of people who where really interested in what this blowhard has to say, you can bet Activision or EA would have picked up on this and pumped real money into her Kony scam.
Which is why we need a pioneer to make the first fighting game where you not only kill people, but also sexually assault them. And not in the humorous way hentai games do it.
Why can’t women just accept the fact that their appearances and roles makes the world go round?
Sure not every portrayal of women can be viewed as a mostly good thing, but I’d rather this chick try and do something more productive about the portrayal of women. She should fly to Japan and get them to stop drawing women getting raped by tentacles and shit.
That’s what we can call a justification. I’d be willing to bet real money that the image came first, and then he put a story to it… That’s how these things almost always go, the story is usually an afterthought.
The funny thing about the Mai/Valentine pose (its actually kind of shocking to me how similar they are when put side by side, guess its another ‘homage’), is that it’s specifically presented to put their breasts and their breasts motion front and center and to grab your attention with that. The way Nak is standing there is actually extremely similar, same hunched forward pose, same hand at her back, same angle of the legs, but the presentation isn’t set to draw your attention to the sexy bits.
In general, I’m not trying to argue that Skullgirls, or Mai for that matter, is so terrible for having this hypersexualized presentation. Hell, I like looking at it too. I am saying that that’s what it is, and that we should just face up to it and not try to make excuses for it. It is what it is.
We know what tits are, we don’t need a thesis explaining the appeal of tits.
Also I like how all this money is used on something so worthless instead of going to donations to helping fund education for women in foreign countries or Women’s Shelters here in the states. Good job femitards.
The problem is that the argument is saying that being “sexy” or “sexual” is bad. Contrary to misguided “moral guardians” say, sex isn’t bad. It’s perfectly natural as is looking sexy.
The problem is that the argument is saying that being “sexy” or “sexual” is bad. Contrary to misguided “moral guardians” say, sex isn’t bad. It’s perfectly natural as is looking sexy.
That’s kind of the doubly funny thing about it. Especially in Japan, Nak is the huge iconic character, the only female in a FG that’s even remotely close to Chun Li.
(although, I just checked pixiv 79 pages of Nakoruru, 87 pages of Mai, 191 pages of Chun Li, so apparently I’m entirely wrong about that, at least as far as fan art goes)
People are though, that’s the whole thing. There are people saying its not sexist and its not objectification, and it’s clearly both. Also its clearly an issue in the culture, which people are denying with extreme vehemence.
If there’s a problem its with the objectification. And let me repeat: The way those characters are presented is in no way natural. It’s more like the scene in Weird Science.
Which then begs the question; is it wrong to draw or present a character in a way that emphasizes a certain trait? More importantly, why is only doing so in a sexual manner perceived as bad? I mean, random guy is portrayed as cannon fodder or simply someone to be beat up and laughed at, and no one complains, yet when a woman’s sexuality is emphasized, it’s automatically bad because it’s “sexist” and “objectifies” her (yet, strictly speaking, weren’t you objectifying the other character as well, just not in a sexual manner).