"Woke" Franchises

[Big Steve]

My reaction to that is, "so what?" But the thing about Red Sonja is that whenever someone brings her up to complain about her outfit is that I just can't help but think about Conan and how much skin he also shows off. Naturally, when this gets pointed out to the woke crowd, they either ignore it, or simply label characters like Conan and Heman dressed in next to nothing as "male power fantasy," because men with body image issues don't exist in their world view, and it's totally not sexist at all to say it's okay to sexualize men because all men like to be sexualized. Which is why you see the same people complaining about female celebrities having nude pictures of them taken at nude beaches by the paparazzi turn around and drool at men having the same done to them, like they did to Orlando Bloom.

First thing... oh for Christ's sake, why do I keep getting replies to multiple-month-old posts in this thread?! 👿

I consider Conan's bit just as silly. Both characters look like they're begging someone to bury them under arrows or to put a blade in their gut, and only writer's fiat saves them from that fate.

Having said that, yeah, I get that it's sometimes a genre convention, and it's supposed to show that Conan and Red Sonja are so epically badass that they don't need the armor. And I'd be lying if I claimed never to have done stuff like putting female characters in the dancer outfits in SWTOR. I'm not saying I consider every single person who likes the look of the character to be a chauvinistic male pig or something. I'm just skeptical of some of the defensive protests on the matter.

As for what the "woke" think, the only "awoke" thing I care about is one of my badass swords from FFXIV (Hauteclaire Awoken).

Why not? What's wrong with liking a character who kicks ass and also admiring her good looks? How is that so impossible in your view?

It's not impossible. I have sentiments myself towards characters like that. But I'm not the one going around crying because Carol Danvers traded in the leotard for a full body costume, and when people act utterly horrified and offended at such a re-design, I'm skeptical of the protest "Oh, I like strong female characters". Because it comes off to me as protesting about artists not providing eye candy.

 

[LifeisTiresome]

First thing... oh for Christ's sake, why do I keep getting replies to multiple-month-old posts in this thread?! 👿

I consider Conan's bit just as silly. Both characters look like they're begging someone to bury them under arrows or to put a blade in their gut, and only writer's fiat saves them from that fate.

Having said that, yeah, I get that it's sometimes a genre convention, and it's supposed to show that Conan and Red Sonja are so epically badass that they don't need the armor. And I'd be lying if I claimed never to have done stuff like putting female characters in the dancer outfits in SWTOR. I'm not saying I consider every single person who likes the look of the character to be a chauvinistic male pig or something. I'm just skeptical of some of the defensive protests on the matter.

As for what the "woke" think, the only "awoke" thing I care about is one of my badass swords from FFXIV (Hauteclaire Awoken).



It's not impossible. I have sentiments myself towards characters like that. But I'm not the one going around crying because Carol Danvers traded in the leotard for a full body costume, and when people act utterly horrified and offended at such a re-design, I'm skeptical of the protest "Oh, I like strong female characters". Because it comes off to me as protesting about artists not providing eye candy.

To summarize, we people who like Conan and Sonja to remain as they are are vile chauvinist pigs and scum. You even admit that you like that sort of stuff but consider yourself better then the rest of us cause your an ally or something.

Thats what this post really means.

 

[Big Steve]

To summarize, we people who like Conan and Sonja to remain as they are are vile chauvinist pigs and scum. You even admit that you like that sort of stuff but consider yourself better then the rest of us cause your an ally or something.

Thats what this post really means.

LOL. It looks like the "woke" don't have a monopoly on telling others what they "really mean". 🙄 😛

This is hardly the thread, or hell, the web forum for someone to do woke virtue-signalling in, so the fact you think that's what I'm doing.... hell, that's funny. You're a regular comedian. Plus you do realize this is all in response to a conversation from nine months ago with a brief resurgence almost three months ago, right? Is it that important to you, hell, to any of you, to dredge it right back up?

 

[LifeisTiresome]

LOL. It looks like the "woke" don't have a monopoly on telling others what they "really mean". 🙄 😛

This is hardly the thread, or hell, the web forum for someone to do woke virtue-signalling in, so the fact you think that's what I'm doing.... hell, that's funny. You're a regular comedian. Plus you do realize this is all in response to a conversation from nine months ago with a brief resurgence almost three months ago, right? Is it that important to you, hell, to any of you, to dredge it right back up?

You were the one making comments about people being chauvinist male pigs. Not me.

Woke people love trying to hide what they really desire/want. Observe the below.

Okay mainly because it's not so much heterosexuality so much as all the assumptions that come with it. A woman who has sex with a man is assumed and even internally often feels pressured to make a committed relationship with that man. making heterosexuality the taboo means that even if you like it and engage in it it's something you don't have to commit to or subordinate yourself too.

There is nothing wrong with heterosexuality and yet at the same time, we need to make it taboo.

Why make something taboo if there is nothing wrong with it? Ergo, there is something wrong with heterosexuality in the person who made this comments eyes. They just tried to hide it with BS. Bad BS hiding attempt.

At any rate, I simply commented on you post cause I saw your post. Nothing more then that.

 

[Big Steve]

You were the one making comments about people being chauvinist male pigs. Not me.

You mean when I specifically said I dismissed the idea of people being such simply because they like Red Sonja's appearance?

Woke people love trying to hide what they really desire/want. Observe the below.

There is nothing wrong with heterosexuality and yet at the same time, we need to make it taboo.

Why make something taboo if there is nothing wrong with it? Ergo, there is something wrong with heterosexuality in the person who made this comments eyes. They just tried to hide it with BS. Bad BS hiding attempt.

*looks over quoted paragraph* The amusing part is that the writer seems to presume homosexuality provides no expectation of monogamous faithfulness. Nope, gays just sleep around, it's the straights who require and demand their lovers remain monogamous. Heaven forbid human beings bond from the act of physical intimacy.

At any rate, I simply commented on you post cause I saw your post. Nothing more then that.

Fair enough.

 

[Captain X]

First thing... oh for Christ's sake, why do I keep getting replies to multiple-month-old posts in this thread?! 👿

Because I've been gone since January, was catching up on what I've missed in this thread, and found I now had something of an axe to grind, because I consider the attitude that you can either appreciate a female character for being "bad ass" or you're "objectifying" her because you also like seeing her look good while kicking ass. Basically the now rather tired sex-negative outlook toward fan service.

I consider Conan's bit just as silly. Both characters look like they're begging someone to bury them under arrows or to put a blade in their gut, and only writer's fiat saves them from that fate.

This is fantasy writing in general, and it happens to have created iconic looks for both of them in the process, which a lot of people actually like quite a bit, whether because they wished they looked like that or they just like how the characters look.

Having said that, yeah, I get that it's sometimes a genre convention, and it's supposed to show that Conan and Red Sonja are so epically badass that they don't need the armor.

I'm pretty sure it's more based on the idea of them being barbarians, with its basis in the old stories about berserkers going into battle back-ass naked.

And I'd be lying if I claimed never to have done stuff like putting female characters in the dancer outfits in SWTOR. I'm not saying I consider every single person who likes the look of the character to be a chauvinistic male pig or something. I'm just skeptical of some of the defensive protests on the matter.

Do tell...

It's not impossible. I have sentiments myself towards characters like that. But I'm not the one going around crying because Carol Danvers traded in the leotard for a full body costume, and when people act utterly horrified and offended at such a re-design, I'm skeptical of the protest "Oh, I like strong female characters". Because it comes off to me as protesting about artists not providing eye candy.

Is there something wrong with wanting eye candy? For all the protests from feminists, a lot of women, including them, also like eye candy, and it's just that the hypocritical ones like to complain about women being the eye candy, and are deluded enough to think that all women share their attitude. As for your example, the simplest explanation is that people liked the old look, and were thus upset when it was changed. Ironically, I happen to like the new outfit and short hair style, at least when she's drawn like a woman and not some androgynous otherkin or something, and my problems with her have to do with her character. Which brings me to the other reason people hate on the changes to this character, because they see the politics behind it for what they are, largely because the people behind it are all to happy to crow about just what those politics are, and the writing is pretty transparent, too.

 

[Terthna]

It's not impossible. I have sentiments myself towards characters like that. But I'm not the one going around crying because Carol Danvers traded in the leotard for a full body costume, and when people act utterly horrified and offended at such a re-design, I'm skeptical of the protest "Oh, I like strong female characters". Because it comes off to me as protesting about artists not providing eye candy.

I'd be lying if I said I didn't prefer the leotard, but what escalates my simple dislike of the change into outright offence at it, is why they did it; to deliberately make her less appealing to a male audience, and to better fit their ideological ideal of a strong female character, i.e. one bereft of femininity and sex appeal. Because it's not just about the outfit; everything from her hairstyle, to the shrinking of her bust, was done deliberately to make her look as masculine as they thought they could get away with.

Actually, if I may go off on a tangent; I don't like "strong female characters". Because that term invariably means a masculine, aggressive, self-absorbed jerk who acts as if punching people in the face is the solution to every problem. Put simply; you ever hear of the term "toxic male power fantasy"? "Strong female character" is, in my mind, the essence of a toxic female power fantasy.

 

[Abhorsen]

ctually, if I may go off on a tangent; I don't like "strong female characters". Because that term invariably means a masculine, aggressive, self-absorbed jerk who acts as if punching people in the face is the solution to every problem. Put simply; you ever hear of the term "toxic male power fantasy"? "Strong female character" is, in my mind, the essence of a toxic female power fantasy.

It's not even a very female power fantasy. The whole aesthetic implies that the only way a woman can be powerful is to become a man. It's incredibly, ironically, misogynistic.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

It's not even a very female power fantasy. The whole aesthetic implies that the only way a woman can be powerful is to become a man. It's incredibly, ironically, misogynistic.

No, in it's own way it IS empowering

It's harder to look like a woman than it is to look like a man

So, forego aesthetics for practicality and strength

Afterwards, you redefine what it is to look and BE a woman

 

[King Krávoka]

and not some androgynous otherkin or something

Tell me what other BASED ideas you mistake for being retarded.

 

[Terthna]

It's not even a very female power fantasy. The whole aesthetic implies that the only way a woman can be powerful is to become a man. It's incredibly, ironically, misogynistic.

I've heard it argued that a lot of the current idea of what makes a "strong independent female character" came out of butch lesbians hijacking the feminist moment in an attempt to expand their dating pool, by forcing other women to see them as the ideal female form.

 

[prinCZess]

I've heard it argued that a lot of the current idea of what makes a "strong independent female character" came out of butch lesbians hijacking the feminist moment in an attempt to expand their dating pool, by forcing other women to see them as the ideal female form.

Ehh, certainly reactions back and forth (the butch lesbian image becoming more glorified arguably rising in the 80s-90s as reaction to some explicit villification and othering that had been done because lipstick lesbians were a more palatable sell in terms of imagery) but these are rather universal themes and struggles primarily centered around the virtues and principles of the sexes (or of humanity in general)--that even 'woke' franchises seek to address and center about in their own way (and with their own author's biases and presumptions as to where those lie or not).

The appropriateness of women being written as 'men with tits' or as a more 'sensetive' sex in-tune with emotions or empathy or what-not is long-running in terms of art and media...And, honestly, the lack of corollary situation vis-a-vis male characters ('woman with dick' as a character archetype isn't really a term...excepting very particular fetish stuff) is probably indicative of some sexist presumptions from the get-go on a principled level. Sure, there's 'nancy-boy' men who are sensitive, but they're more defined by lack of manly virtues than the presence of womanly. Maybe someone can think of an exception or alternative? I'm drawing a blank.

Point being, the extent to which 'masculine' or 'feminine' virtues even are such to begin with is arguable (is 'empathy' a distinctively female virtue? Or merely a human one we should all aspire to that, perhaps, more women achieve?) and portrayal of all this necessarily tends to be complicated whenever someone tries to be nuanced or thematic about it--because whether or not it's the case is arguable and 'good' instances of it will tend to leave room for judgement and argument (this being one where some works fail).

To use an example---It's a straightforward instance of it, but the somewhat famous dichotomy between Ripley and Vasquez in the Aliens movie somewhat sidles up to this whole area of discussion: is Vasquez a woman who's adopted the 'male' virtues and emblems of the military structure she's part of (and is that military, necessarily, a 'masculine' organization to promote those virtues and emblems) or are those virtues she displays (bravery, honor, protecting others) and that the military 'wants' and promotes just human ones in general everyone should aspire to. On the flipside, is the more 'traditionally feminine' caring, empathetic, and protective attitude of Ripley towards Newt (a young human child) a product of biology and 'feminine virtues' that are promoted by evolution itself as a hard-wired response, or just virtues all people should aspire to and achieve regardless of sex. Notably, there's overlap between both those depictions (protecting others comes into both), so even their presence itself could be argued.

Maybe this is my flower-child hippy coming out (and my apologies for going off on a tangent in response--not much of this has to do with your comment ), but modes of expression, self-images, and social presentation are somewhat complicated items that modern media...has a bad habit of not doing very well because more 'flat' identities especially in this whole realm ('butch lesbian', 'flamboyant gay man', 'closeted man/woman', 'bigoted straight person', etc.) seem to be in vogue because writers lost the definition of 'subtlety'. But individual characters and appropriateness in specific stories and universes is really where much of this debate SHOULD take place but oftentimes doesn't--and universes or stories which used to focus upon aspects of one might get modernized or changed to go a different direction because of differing modern sensibilities...But as equally as there is or might be 'misogyny' and a desire for 'pretty tits' or beefcake in older renditions of something (Conan and Red Sonja coming up previously), there might as well be elements of that above...search for universal value--and the imagery is kind've just a lagging indicator of that (I must admit to never having read comics on either of them, but presumably Red Sonja is somewhat of a 'woman doing Conan' type of thing? In which case that--and the specific portrayal--can quickly get you into the above issues on how much of depicted virtues and positives are inherent to sex and which are inherent to humanity--because I assume they're somewhat comparable characters with some kind of honor system and generally 'heroic' nature to them).

 

[Arch Dornan]

More reasons to hate Chuck Wendig.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

Japan's WOKE-ness



Is very weird

 

[LifeisTiresome]

No, in it's own way it IS empowering

It's harder to look like a woman than it is to look like a man

So, forego aesthetics for practicality and strength

Afterwards, you redefine what it is to look and BE a woman

So you approve of the bolded or what?

 

[CarlManvers2019]

So you approve of the bolded or what?

Nope, but I can see from an SJW's perspective due to having once been a Pseudo-SJW who at least expected for them to be better written....and not this weird shit

 

[TyrantTriumphant]

It looks like the guys who make Eclipse Phase are funding for Black Lives Matter. You can definitely see the Leftism in their work, but I'm still disappointed.

 

[CarlManvers2019]

It looks like the guys who make Eclipse Phase are funding for Black Lives Matter. You can definitely see the Leftism in their work, but I'm still disappointed.

I'm expecting MeatCanyon to release some new videos depicting BLM as saints who are ordinary looking and gonna punch some "Nazi's" to death who just so happen to not even be white



Can't top this though

 

[Terthna]

It looks like the guys who make Eclipse Phase are funding for Black Lives Matter. You can definitely see the Leftism in their work, but I'm still disappointed.

They likely honestly believe the propaganda painting Black Lives Matter as the good guys; and are merely useful idiots, rather than die-hard adherents to regressive left ideology. It hurts to see so many people falling for it, but most people can be shockingly ignorant about the world around them; they also tend to believe whatever they hear first is the unvarnished truth, reacting violently to anyone trying to convince them otherwise.

 

[King Krávoka]

I'm still disappointed.

Don't be, there was no possibility that they would do anything else.