Well, I'm convinced.Originally Posted by CAST VOX
I mean, how many of us have actually seen a womans in real life? So if you say it's totally normal for them to go to work every day in a low cut top and hot pants, what reason would I have to doubt you?
I saw some girls at a club or something wearing something like this so it's totally what female mechanics wear at work.
everything is wrapped in gray
i'm focusing on your image
can you hear me in the void?
I'm going to start charging people a dollar every time they use the "I see hyper sexualized women all the time therefore this is okay" argument. It's my "get rich quick" scheme.
I think the difference between whether the thing is sexist or not hinges on the fact that those women with super cleavage you know IRL chose to be that way. Cidney (I'm not calling her Cindy, smurf the lot of you if you even think about correcting me) was DESIGNED by men to look the way she does. And it wouldn't be a thing at all if past Cids, all of which have been male, had been sexualized. If there'd been even one clear example of it.
I do agree that one of the ways we could deal with this situation is to embrace the character's other traits that don't sexualize her and as an audience turn her into something positive, but that doesn't change the fact that the designers at SE made some pretty troutty decisions with the visual designs for this character which are so clearly sexist that I'm not sure why this is a debate at all. Anyone who doesn't see it without having to be told, isn't going to see it after being told. Because it's pretty smurfing blatant. I mean, really.
Her character design is better than most of the the things SE has crapped out, regardless of gender.I think the difference between whether the thing is sexist or not hinges on the fact that those women with super cleavage you know IRL chose to be that way. Cidney (I'm not calling her Cindy, smurf the lot of you if you even think about correcting me) was DESIGNED by men to look the way she does. And it wouldn't be a thing at all if past Cids, all of which have been male, had been sexualized. If there'd been even one clear example of it.
I do agree that one of the ways we could deal with this situation is to embrace the character's other traits that don't sexualize her and as an audience turn her into something positive, but that doesn't change the fact that the designers at SE made some pretty troutty decisions with the visual designs for this character which are so clearly sexist that I'm not sure why this is a debate at all. Anyone who doesn't see it without having to be told, isn't going to see it after being told. Because it's pretty smurfing blatant. I mean, really.
Also, the word sexist means pertaining, involving, or fostering sexism. Which this character design does none of. So no, it's not sexist.
In what world does having cleavage equate to being hyper sexualized?
Quite a many.
None.
Last edited by CAST VOX; 01-08-2015 at 10:54 AM.
There once was a thug named Brown.
Who bum rushed a cop with a frown.
6 bullets later
He met his creator
Then his homies burnt down the town.
It's like the whole last 11 pages is repeating itself.
This question has been answered at least four times.In what world does having cleavage equate to being hyper sexualized?
I mean, I don't expect you to have read this entire thread or anything. I'm just saying don't hold it against me for not repeating what's already been said over and over.
I already have.
A satisfactory answer has yet to be given. Playing mental gymnastics about what is or isn't sexualisation in men vs women is hardly a proper argument or reason. Also, sexualisation isn't a bad thing to begin with. Nor is objectification.
There once was a thug named Brown.
Who bum rushed a cop with a frown.
6 bullets later
He met his creator
Then his homies burnt down the town.
I'm actually going to do it.
For the first time in a long timer I am going to channel my Inner-Hux and Inner-Freed.
Please provide examples of what you consider to be bad character design in numbered FF games post-VI and state why they are bad.
Good job the primary criticism here is that the design is hypersexualised and how they're disappointed that SQEX have done this.Also, the word sexist means pertaining, involving, or fostering sexism. Which this character design does none of. So no, it's not sexist.
It's not just the cleavage people are criticising.In what world does having cleavage equate to being hyper sexualized?
I typed out a pretty long explanation in this post. If you can't figure out how there's anything remotely suggestive within the first 50 seconds of that video, then I guess this discussion would be about as productive as trying to knock down a building with my own forehead.
Although as an ammendum to that post let me add:
cid1.jpg
cid2.jpg
cid3.jpg
cid4.jpg
cid5.jpg
cid6.jpg
cid7.jpg
Although, next you'll be telling us you walk around everyday looking like this. Because it's appropriate day to day wear, just like Cidney's outfit is what you'd expect a mechanic to be wearing, right?
As a funny aside...
10888127_10153001753369708_1473850786_n.jpg
Hammer Head Full Service Station?
10822174_10153001753524708_1893229860_n.jpg
Well by that line of thought. You've yet to state satisfactory reasoning about why you feel the way you do, other than throwing around generalised statements and semantics in a thread that is ultimately perception based.
So out of curiosity, what constitutes:
?
Did you really read the whole thing? Because I literally said "sexualisation isn't a bad thing to begin with. Nor is objectification" almost exactly in those words at least twice. And multiple people have described what it is about Cidney that makes her hyper sexualized beyond just cleavage. I really wouldn't blame you if you didn't read all those pages and long posts, but to just come in and say "nope, wrong" without offering any substance to your rebuttal makes it hard to give you much credit. Which I honestly would like to be able to give you if you have points to make.
It seems like you disagree with me (and others) about 1) what hyper sexualization is, 2) when sexualization is good or bad, 3) when objectification is good or bad, and 4) the sexualization on men versus women. Perhaps you could offer some definitions, sources, examples to support your points...?
I never said any of that. But hey, nice espantajo.
The reason I don't feel objectification or sexualization are wrong is because they are perfectly natural, occur on a daily basis, and are not proven to cause harm. Hence why I am confused as to why everyone is already in agreement that they are wrong.
*snip* EDIT BY BoB: Refrain from posting stuff like this.
A fantasy based on reality is still fantasy. Many of the things contained within will be idealized or exaggerated in some form or another. Perhaps those ideals and ideas aren't your thing. But they seem to be the character designer's thing. And there is nothing wrong with that. You have yet to prove there is. And I don't have to prove there isn't, because I don't have to prove a negative.
There once was a thug named Brown.
Who bum rushed a cop with a frown.
6 bullets later
He met his creator
Then his homies burnt down the town.
Please avoid any personal argument in this thread, everyone. Stick to the debating the details, not each other. I've found this thread to be really insightful and helpful personally, and for the most part there has been little personal attack or much close to it, and I'd like to keep it that way. This is a thread and discussion worthy of healthy debate.
Bow before the mighty Javoo!
Got it. I'll dial it back a bit.
There once was a thug named Brown.
Who bum rushed a cop with a frown.
6 bullets later
He met his creator
Then his homies burnt down the town.
I had to look that up. I'm stealing it.
Seeing you say this after I've addressed it with paragraphs on paragraphs, video posts, and links to scholarly articles makes me just literally like
.
I will repeat a few, and I will give you more.
If you want a summary that's easy to digest, Laci Green breaks it down in her video here, which I posted a few pages ago. You can dismiss each of her examples as "untrue" or "insignificant," but they are easily verifiable and if you give me specific ones I will even look those up for you if you want to see the evidence supporting them.
Also several pages ago, I posted eight links describing ways that objectification causes harm. Here is the list:
I looked up some new ones for you:
This article sums up six studies.
A Test Of Objectification Theory: The Effect Of The Male Gaze On Appearance Concerns In College Women
Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human
A MEDIATIONAL MODEL LINKING SELF-OBJECTIFICATION, BODY SHAME, AND DISORDERED EATING
MEDIA CONTRIBUTIONS TO AFRICAN AMERICAN GIRLS' FOCUS ON BEAUTY AND APPEARANCE: EXPLORING THE CONSEQUENCES OF SEXUAL OBJECTIFICATION
I can find more if you want. I wasn't sure how much effort to put into this because I'm not sure how much you care. Can you show me anything that refutes my evidence or supports your notion that objectification is neutral?
Uh, you're welcome?I had to look that up. I'm stealing it.
No, those sources are compelling enough.
There once was a thug named Brown.
Who bum rushed a cop with a frown.
6 bullets later
He met his creator
Then his homies burnt down the town.
I appreciate that. Thank you. Is there anything else I can clarify for you, or anything you'd like to clarify for me? I'm unclear as to what "hyper sexualized" means to you if Cidney isn't it.
Posting Permissions
