Thoughts on this femanons argument?
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
Comments (43)
sorted by:
Thoughts?
She already lost any chance she had of convincing me in the very first sentence. Which is not even getting into that she then immediately drops the "misogynistic" attack in combination with weasel words like "tends to be." But this is what had already lost me:
That's not what any of this is about. It's not that modern characters aren't "beautiful," it's that they're intentionally, perversely, and maliciously made to be ugly freaks.
Also, yeah, sorry, beauty in fiction is sort of default. It's a fictional character, you want to make them nice and appealing; they likely will be more attractive than average. Because you can do that. Because it's fiction. If you're going to design an ugly character, at least have that ugliness play a roll in character design. Beauty is fine on it's own because people like beauty. They're trying to flip the script and make ugliness the default, but without bringing an explanation or any other character traits to the table. That's just a straight downgrade. And, again, that's not even touching the other issues, like the terrible writing that tends to go along with the ideology, or that the same people who hate beauty also hate the people who are playing the game.
Basically, this poster is just dodging the real issue. Just because "combat isn't clean, elegant, or sexy," doesn't mean female characters need to be ugly freaks...while men are still generally relatively attractive, by the way. She's either ideologically captured, or being intentionally misleading. People aren't making scarred or bruised characters, they're making, again, ugly freaks. That's got nothing to do with "combat," and the whole thing is a stupid dodge.
I'd say this poster is equating intentional ugliness with character nuance and artistic freedom, but that would be giving her too much credit, since she's not willing to even acknowledge the intentional ugliness as that would blow apart her whole argument.
She hits all the usual stuff like 'misogyny,' 'male gamers,' 'porn,' 'unrealistic beauty standards,' 'making all the ugly women feel good,' and the very disingenuous aforementioned 'artistic freedom.'
TL;DR: Thoughts? It's the bog standard nonsense goalpost shifting.
That's feminism in a nutshell.
It's 100% disingenuous arguments and projection. There's really no reason to "debate" them except for the audience.
The only way I'd respond to this is, "yawn. Accusations of misogyny and goalpost shifting. Whatever."
I think what's going on is quite simple. It's self-esteem.
People that are happy with their selves, that are healthy or content or believe they have value, they like seeing beauty and those that believe they are worthless freaks want to see ugly. It's like if you wake up depressed that feels appropriate on a rainy day, and if you wake up manic you expect the day to be bright and clear. People want their outside environment to reflect their internal state.
These woke people are worthless people and they know it. They may sometimes be nice to their in-group, but even that is transactional and "performative" - they're not nice or happy people. Any skill they have, they know some youtuber can do it better and they don't feel the intrinsic value of improving themselves. Kids coming in last place in a contest where the adults prohibit rankings to protect their feelings actually feel worse about themselves than just coming in last place. When you try to protect kids from failing they end up feeling worthless.
So they want things to be ugly. Because inside that's what they are.
maybe. but they also absolutely despise the idea of a man enjoying anything at all, ever, if it doesn't not immediately benefit a woman. a man having a good time and living a content life is evil and bad and must be stopped at all costs.
so when you enjoy a show because it is appealing to men, to a man's concept of the world, to a man's instincts, that is bad and evil and you are a misogynist bastard that must pay. men must be made to serve women and hate their lives.
I think they want everybody to be miserable and "for women" is just a measure of that; if you're at their beck you're at least as miserable a creature as they are.
Both come back to the same thing.
Happy men are enthusiastic and energetic. Enthusiasm and energy eventually turns into a positive act and any positive act improves and builds up a man. The happy man grows and the ugly debbie downer keeps fermenting his soul away in their negativity.
The ugly debbie downer passes the happy man on the street and the ugly debbie downer is instantly reminded of his own character faults than prevent them from becoming the happy man they just passed.
Exactly! They want to frame the issue as men have too high standards, that it’s our fault. Instead of Western developers purposely creating ugly characters.
Yeah you can’t say “beauty doesn’t matter” while also praising inclusion and “feeling represented”. These losers always contradict themselves because when you find the hypocrisy they just default to either “well it doesn’t really matter” or “you’re the problem”
My response would be: if you want my money, you will give me what I want, rather than giving me what you think I need. The market will decide what is a "good" character, not you.
The argument is flawed at its core. It assumes characters are either supermodels or fugly, with no room in between. Gamers' gripe isn't about characters that are normal, it's about the butt-ugly monstrosities that are plaguing modern gaming.
100%, as well as the ideology behind that. Intentionally hideous characters are bad enough, intentionally hideous characters made because they hate us and want to get one over on us is adding insult to injury. They want to take away things people enjoy, and inject their own cancerous subversions into everything.
It's also wasteful
These firms are hiring literal models and then attacking the 3d mesh of those models with the ugly stick to make a point. They're going out of their way to do this.
It's not off to notice this.
No I don't pretend "femanons" are human.
Women in combat are a pure fantasy. So boob plate, combat heels, fighters having make-up or done nails are totally fine because complaining about them being unrealistic is like complaining about magic or dragons being unrealistic. That's the point, stupid.
Thoughts?
Tits or get the fuck out.
I'm not sure if it's a shitpost or not. Making their picture a character (Otome Saotome) from a raunchy comedy who is a literal rebel artist drawing sexy things underground in a puritanical society where they've been banned... and then arguing that sexy characters are bad is quite an achievement of cognitive dissonance.
The main problem with this is she's arguing against a complete strawman. The "sanitized, clean beauty" thing is not what anyone is demanding. Sure it looks good on a character like 2B who's appearance is deliberately at odds with the environment - but the only issues people had with Tomb Raider (2013)'s design was that it was an unnecessary redesign of Lara. If you'd put that design in an original IP, no one was going "Ew! You've gotten some mud and blood on her face. I hate this game now!"
Gamers aren't asking for nothing blowup dolls and porn stars. Just stop giving female MC's deliberately unattractive body and face proportions. Then you can make them as filthy, brutal, and inelegant as you want. No one will mind. No one had an issue with HZD1 Aloy. No one liked Nikocado-Avocado-face Aloy.
C1 and C2 are fine statements. Just don't expect it to be well received or financially successful. You're still allowed to make what you want to make. You just can't demand that people buy it or like it.
1: Probably a troon.
2: "Sanitized, clean, beauty (untouchable even by dirt/mud) isn't necessarily a misogynistic ideal to uphold, but it tends to be one." doesn't make any sense, given that most of the fuglies in today's games don't even show environmental damage or reactions to hazards. Recall how in Batman Arkham City both Batman and Catwoman endured dirt/grime/scratches/cuts and physical damage to their respective suits. People love those characters and that game because it grounded its characters in a believable enough narrative set within the Arkhamverse.
Same thing with 2B from Nier Automata; throughout the game she endures a lot of physical damage that shows up on her character as battle damage. Ironically, I don't think Aloy from Horizon actually ever gets dirty or scratched up or has her clothes damaged in any way? Same thing with that Forspoken monstrosity or anyone from Back 4 Blood or Redfall. So hilariously, the more fantastical characters are actually the ones depicted with more realistic implications and results from engaging and interacting with their environments, which completely destroys whatever argument the troonanon was trying to make about "realism" or grounded depictions of female characters with idealised beauty standards.
But that's all besides the point: the point is that designers are making ugly characters on purpose and putting them in worlds that aren't even fun to engage with. Those worlds have no grounded worldbuilding, the characters don't act like they're actually in that world (most of the time), and there are almost no consequences depicted for interacting in said world. It's essentially a theme park ride with an ugly protagonist in a boring world.
We don't have to do the opposite either.
Argumenter is strawmanning disagreers by conflating beauty with sexuality and calling them simplistic horndogs.
Men are made to labor and sacrifice, but as humans they are also selfish beings. Nature requires men to be willing to sacrifice themselves for their women, therefore female beauty necessarily represents in the eyes of men everything that is good in the world; that is, everything that is worth dying for. It transcends mere sexuality. Female beauty is inspiring and sorely needed as an abstract reminder that the sufferings that men must bear are worthwhile because there are good things in the world.
Most healthy people prefer their art beautiful.
There's a rule on 4chan, and while I'm lacking context, I don't think she properly provided tits before making it all about her sex. Your argument has to stand on its own merit bereft of sexual advantages, so if you're bringing in your sex to it, you must pay a toll: Tits or GTFO. It isn't a rule here, but it IS a rule there, and you should follow the law of the land you tourist travel in.
And we can clearly see the argument doesn't have merit. She's a tourist. Has she even played any video games, or only watched Sharky's scam series? When a female character gets hurt in a video game, she doesn't just dodge it like a Stand-user or have the attack phase through her, she reacts. She falls to the ground, and pulls herself back up again. It isn't elegant, or sexy, it's an approximation of realism. And for her to think that no video game features women taking any form of damage in combat, that they're unfettered, unlinked, to the "reality" of their world, proves she's not played a video game in her life. Even Mrs. Pac Man shrivels and dies in ignominy when harmed by the ghosts, and that had 8-bit graphics!
They always project.
Just another particularly ugly freak bloviating about how everyone else needs to be dragged down to their level of disgusting by any means necessary.
Also the absolute leatherface cope of clinging to the idea that there is only one kind of beautiful, so it would be boring to only include beautiful characters. Like you couldn't almost immediately pick out a list of 100 varied and starkly different women that a majority of guys could still agree are all hot in their own way.
Allow me to present to you: the modern woman...
...who has never had a single aspirational, inspirational, or ambitious thought or impulse in her entire life that didn't revolve entirely around someone else (usually a man), at long last, after soo much unjust waiting on her part, finally recognizing her intrinsic worth ~aS a wOmAn~ and simply forking over anything and everything she was always entitled to all along, on demand and no questions asked...
Next, allow me to present to you the mirror argument:
Going on ten years since The Zoe Post, and I see that a new generation of deluded bittercunts is ripe for the trolling.
Characters across all fiction media must overcome the uncanny valley. In film, we call it “suspension of disbelief”. The more conventionally attractive a character is, the easier it becomes to override the audience’s inherent bias against fictional constructs. We don’t enjoy being lied to, and we are more likely to believe attractive people.
What this feminist is really mad about is the existence of objective beauty standards. If her premise is that such standards don’t exist, then she’s denying the research. If her intent is merely to attack the standard, then she’s just a pathological subversive. You can’t deny or fight a hurricane.
Women don't operate on logic.
So why would you argue with them?
That just makes you the bigger retard than whatever nonsense they are spouting.
Nobody needs more ugliness in their lives.
I believe this person falls into a category I've been developing. I call this the narcissistic man cave fixation scenario. Let me explain in as much detail as I can.
You and a man get along well. Well enough that you two decide to share a domicile. More than likely his, as you value a man who can provide. So, a man let you into his home. You do not like anything in it, other than the man. You slowly change everything he likes, in his own home, from every room until he says "No, not that room, that's mine. You already have the rest of the house, leave me this one room."
And he'll decorate it in a way you absolutely despise, full of all the things he enjoys. As noted when you enter and shudder and tell him to change it. And he never does. As you have the rest of the house, and it's his room to feel special in, since he seems to no longer have control over his own home's decoration. Your tastes are not his, and his tastes are not yours. Neither the two shall meet. Trying to adjust someone's tastes is difficult when you have only disdain for it, rather than appreciate it's eccentrics and differences, at the very least. But you cannot do that. Everything must be yours, have your touch, be your own, or it's hated by you. Which by the way, says so much about you.
( Now to the discussion at hand, and what it has to do with the above. )
Your argument does not explain why people will hire a model, male or female, and they'll be scanned digitally into a game, and the women will always have butterface, whereas the men won't. With the exception of asian devs and actual skilled western devs from years ago. And don't give me that it's makeup that's the problem. Tell the model to not wear anything on their face to get the best possible scan. Then do another with makeup to prove that's not what it is. But you won't. We know it's not a skill issue, it's intentional uglification.
This also does not explain the way that men are thrown into a subservient role around the new usurper character, typically a female. Who we know next to nothing about, but yet knows how to do everything better than anyone who we've actually seen struggle to get to the point they're at with their knowledge or technical knowhow they have. While this new girl just runs circles around them like it's all easy. Bonus points if it's never shown or explained why she can do those things effortlessly. And everyone just goes along with it, and stops caring about what happens to the guy. There is likely some fantasy at play there from the writer that more than likely came from the 'and everyone clapped' tumblr nonsense, but I'd rather not pigeonhole someone into a corner with an assumption. They could just be a shitty writer.
Beauty standards exist because people like attractive people. This isn't rocket science. If you're ugly, life is harder. If you're not, life is easier. It's absolutely shitty, but we all do this. We've done this since the dawn of time when our extreme ancestors fucked the evolution world over by realizing that rocks can be thrown, and it gets you what you want.
As we've seen over and over, anything that anything bad happens to a guy in media is his fault, and anything bad that happens to a woman seemingly for no reason at all, happens to all women and you can't have her in a bad way or bad light or women are now all angry that they are somehow affected by this media portrayal of every women on the planet, even though it should be obvious to anyone over the age of ten that's not the intention being portrayed. You have to intentionally self insert, and get mad at this in order to be this way. Which only points out that men think "Hey, this guy is cool, he knows a lot of cool shit. I'd like to be more like that. Look at what he suffered through and bettered himself from." Whereas girls think "This is me. I am this character. Anything that happens to this character will wound me like it wounds them." And bluntly, that's massively fucking retarded.
What I think is missed a lot by this type of argument is that for the most part the guy in a movie or video game that knows how to solve a problem is typically listened to because of their credentials and past experience. Not just because he's a male.
When you show us some new girl that can hypothetically cartwheel on a treadmill while doing algebra in her head, and fix an issue with some engine by throwing a wrench at the apex of her jump and have the open end tighten a nut or bolt, is not at all the same as someone being shown training for half their life to get to where they are now and knowing how to deal with an issue based on past experience that we witnessed them learning from and doing.
The only part I agree with is developers should be free to do as they intend, free from the shackles of consultants and other "I know better than you about this" sort of bullshit that is infecting all media. But they did not mean creative freedom in that sense, they meant it entirely as ugly women can do things too. No one is saying they can't. Bluntly, I just don't want to fucking see it in my fantasy escapism.
In conclusion: You see what is not yours, what does not appeal to you, and rather than live and let live, you choose to fix something that does not need fixing. It appeals to people who are not you. You never liked it, you didn't enjoy it, but you had to change it to better suit you. Further, you either can't tell reality from fantasy, or you're being intentionally troubled by actions in media that are not happening to you, in a fictional setting, that you have fixated on as your enemy, even though you have imprinted yourself onto it, and you've got so little in your life to complain about that you like to make others as miserable as you are by ruining things they enjoy.
TL;DR: Get fucked, leave things alone.
Dragon Age Origins already had blood splatters after combat. Beautiful characters could become dirty & it showed that combat isn't clearn.
"Blowup dolls and porn stars"? This is how she describes the women that are used as a base for the video game women? Also when I walk around the city I always see beautiful women. They're not that rare.
I think the main problem with this is that not even ugly people want to look at an ugly person for longer than they have to, regardless of whether or not it is relatable that the character is ugly. Making them pleasant to look at also gives a bit of wiggle room for failure in case you don't hit the mark.
Secondly, a character being ugly or even "relatable" doesn't automatically make them a good character. Is it possible to have a good ugly character? Maybe. Sure. But as long as we're going down an exhaustingly long marxian checklist of "relatable" things to shoehorn in, you don't really get to have that.
She should have read her Shakespeare. Assuming that even is a woman.
My thoughts are that this "femanon" has a cock
Faggot behavior. Already a retard.
She seems to confuse "attractive woman" with "women who doesn't get dirty or unclean despite doing a dirty or unclean job." This is pretty typical in arguing with femoids. There's a real point they've missed in favor of arguing something no one is actually talking about, similar to the way that they will try to use an exception to a rule to disprove a rule.
She tries to pretend that fictional characters cannot be forced to be attractive because the people in that thread, or in real life in general, are not attractive themselves. This is not an argument. It would simply destroy fiction because no one is as smart as Tony Stark, Bruce Wayne, or Sherlock Holmes; no one is as strong as Goku, Superman, or Saitama; no one is as magical as Megumin, Harry Potter, or Doctor Strange. It is an entirely irrelevant point, and modelling any fantasy scenario strictly off of real life restrictions is absurd. That's why we call it FANTASYYYY.
She also complains that attractive women are not relatable to the "female audience," but I think this is just projection. No man has ever complained about "unrealistic standards" on the shape of male characters, only women do this. It's a Leftist argument in its entirety, and it doesn't exist without their world view poisoning the idea of fantasy needing to reflect real life. The attack on the very natural desire to see desirable "mates" is more Leftist drivel. They'll cite homosexuality being natural because dirty animals will hump and fuck whatever they can, but turn around and smear heterosexual behaviors as excessive and unnecessary.
She is ideologically possessed, probably very fat and ogre-ish, and envious of strangers' want to see women that do not resemble her. She does not deserve to post the smug anime girl reaction image she used, she should get back in the fucking kitchen where she would embarrass herself less as she attempted to cook lunch for whatever man was desperate enough to settle for her roasty ass.
The clear way to refute this is that the in-game world never treats the female MC like she’s the ugly beast they designed her to be. That’s the problem with this modern trend in media. Historically the plain looking girls were allowed to be self conscious and even juxtaposed against “hot” chicks and it was always endearing because regular guys/people could relate to it. The current use of ugly chicks is always in a context where the world is either completely neutral to their ugliness or it’s a full on brow beating where the world pretends that she’s not though. You can’t claim sincere intent behind the ugly female character design unless the artist actually commits to it imo.
Let's take the argument as legitimate for 30 seconds:
> Combat isn't clean, elegant, or sexy
Should only be followed by any female combatants getting Clegane'd. The end.
Context?
Anyway, progs pretty much have this idea a female character can't be conventionally attractive and be taken seriously, so take that as you will
Edit: and since that's a femanon on a chan, I can say he's most likely a troon. Have you noticed how troon are always portrayed as let's say, not realistic? So they know there is value in beauty. It's all a psyop
that's just rephrasing the "we change race of established characters so black audience can relate to them" bullshit
2/10, one of the weakest word salad baits i've seen
There are legitimate narrative reasons to make a main character good looking, especially when you're telling a pop fictional story like 90% of the content being litigated on social media. That's all that needs to be said. It's a very simple issue.
This person thinks they understand the narrative reasons better than others, but they've only learned enough to fool themselves. A midwit.
my response. Shut The Fuck Up. You were not given permission to speak.
that's a man
I still maintain that every single pic you've posted here as proof of the need for a female holocaust was made by one of your own sock accounts.
Possibly, or he's just young and impressionable and needs a place to vent. He needs to avoid being online so much and enjoy the real world.
tits or gtfo