Tropes vs Women

[-TK-]

Side note: there are some (bad, IMO) history books that equate early modern witch-hunts with women-hunts, i.e. either intentionally designed to attack/destroy women or subconsciously carried out to just grind women into the dust (as if they needed any sort of made-up pretext if they wanted to do that, anyway). In continental Europe and the British Isles, witchcraft was typically associated with things that women do: childbirth, midwifery, herbalism/folk magic, and being caretakers/practitioners of longstanding folk beliefs that syncretized with Catholicism. This is also stuff that a) went wrong a lot (infant mortality was between 50% and 60%) and b) was often associated with "maleficia" (evil magic used to harm other people/their crops/their livestock -- in a world where this stuff got screwed up naturally all the time).

 

 

Absolutely, folklore is one of my chief interests and as part of my last job I spent a lot of time researching the history of the various local witch trials here on the west coast of Scotland; and roughly 40% or more of those who were tried were male, and contrary to popular belief: the vast majority of the people who were tried were also found innocent. (just as apoint of interest)

Edited September 23, 2012 by -TK-

[J.E. Sawyer]

On the witch-hunt subject, why did they start to begin with?

I don't want to derail too much, but the early inquisitions were a reaction to a) willful heresy (e.g. Catharism/Albigensianism) b) widespread unconscious subversion of Catholic doctrine through the maintenance of folk beliefs (e.g. I believe the Lord Jesus Christ is my savior. I also believe that the Green Man lives in the woods, that babies are often switched with changelings, and that these herbs have magical powers). Straight-up heresy was often promoted by men, but random folk magic/beliefs were typically practiced/spread by women.

 

A particularly interesting case study of one dude gone off the rails of personal heresy can be found in Carlo Ginzburg's book Il formaggio e i vermi / The Cheese and the Worms.

 

E: Also, a nice pop history book on the Albigensian Crusade is The Perfect Heresy by Stephen O'Shea. Catharism as it manifested in Languedoc/Occitania (i.e. as widespread cultural Albigensianism co-existing just fine with Catholicism) undermined the authority of the papacy and the Catholic church in general. The northern "French" nobles like Simon de Montfort who participated in the resulting crusade were pretty much just in it for the territories/holdings promised by the pope. Modern France owes much of its shape and culture homogeneity (e.g. the slow decline of Occitan) to the aftermath of the crusade.

 

It also paints an interesting picture of Dominic de Guzmán aka St. Dominic, as he conducted pretty chill, level-headed debates with the Albigensians that were entirely dissimilar to the papacy's hamfisted efforts. It's really striking to read about his interactions compared to those of his spiritual followers in subsequent centuries as the go-to inquisitor order, the Dominicans (jokingly called "domini canes"/ "Hounds of the Lord"). Both authors of the Malleus Maleficarum, which was incredibly hostile and hysteria-inducing among the populace, were Dominicans.

Edited September 23, 2012 by J.E. Sawyer
added some stuff about albigensians

[Gurkog]

Discrimination is easy to produce among any population. All you need is civil unrest coupled with a pervasive ideology that identifies itself as seperate from the whole and a group that is less capable of defending itself (be it small numbers, socially conditioned submission, or physicly weaker). Someone belonging to the ideology points out how random person x of the outsider group is not as worse off as the average disgruntled citizen and say that society's problems can be solved by making them feel worse. I guess life is easier when others are suffering more.

[Dragoonlordz]

On the witch-hunt subject, why did they start to begin with?

I don't want to derail too much, but the early inquisitions were a reaction to a) willful heresy (e.g. Catharism/Albigensianism) b) widespread unconscious subversion of Catholic doctrine through the maintenance of folk beliefs (e.g. I believe the Lord Jesus Christ is my savior. I also believe that the Green Man lives in the woods, that babies are often switched with changelings, and that these herbs have magical powers). Straight-up heresy was often promoted by men, but random folk magic/beliefs were typically practiced/spread by women.

 

A particularly interesting case study of one dude gone off the rails of personal heresy can be found in Carlo Ginzburg's book Il formaggio e i vermi / The Cheese and the Worms.

 

I would say I think you are very well educated in regards to that point of discussion, I am quite impressed really with how much you know about the subject.

 

Kudos to you.

[Alweth]

Side note: there are some (bad, IMO) history books that equate early modern witch-hunts with women-hunts, i.e. either intentionally designed to attack/destroy women or subconsciously carried out to just grind women into the dust (as if they needed any sort of made-up pretext if they wanted to do that, anyway). In continental Europe and the British Isles, witchcraft was typically associated with things that women do: childbirth, midwifery, herbalism/folk magic, and being caretakers/practitioners of longstanding folk beliefs that syncretized with Catholicism. This is also stuff that a) went wrong a lot (infant mortality was between 50% and 60%) and b) was often associated with "maleficia" (evil magic used to harm other people/their crops/their livestock -- in a world where this stuff got screwed up naturally all the time).

 

 

Absolutely, folklore is one of my chief interests and as part of my last job I spent a lot of time researching the history of the various local witch trials here on the west coast of Scotland; and roughly 40% or more of those who were tried were male, and contrary to popular belief: the vast majority of the people who were tried were found innocent. (just as apoint of interest)

 

The real travesty was not the witch trials, but the witch burnings (and other executions) that occurred without trial throughout Europe. As much as we look back on witch trials as barbaric and superstitious, they were actually the cutting edge of civilization and dispassionate rationalism, at the time.

[evdk]

ITT: trolling overload

 

As the meme goes, I don't know who's trolling who anymore.

[Meshugger]

The thread should've been locked after anek posted his(hers?) brilliant reply, there was nothing left to discuss really....until Josh showed up with his derailment. By all means, you have my blessing to derail the thread further, that snip was quite interesting!

[licketysplit]

The thread should've been locked after anek posted his(hers?) brilliant reply, there was nothing left to discuss really....until Josh showed up with his derailment. By all means, you have my blessing to derail the thread further, that snip was quite interesting!

 

Yeah I'm learning stuff here.

 

*puts on nerd glasses*

[-TK-]

 

The real travesty was not the witch trials, but the witch burnings (and other executions) that occurred without trial throughout Europe. As much as we look back on witch trials as barbaric and superstitious, they were actually the cutting edge of civilization and dispassionate rationalism, at the time.

 

Well, to be fair, that's another common misconception, most witches were put to death prior to being burned, usually by strangulation or some other more humane method. I believe the burning was more symbolic in nature.

 

But you're right of course, we can't judge history through the lense of modern morality, things have to be viewed in the context of the time.

 

History is there to be lived and to be understood from a human perspective without all of our own cultural baggage to skew things out of the original context.

[Auxilius]

On the witch-hunt subject, why did they start to begin with?

E: Also, a nice pop history book on the Albigensian Crusade is The Perfect Heresy by Stephen O'Shea. Catharism as it manifested in Languedoc/Occitania (i.e. as widespread cultural Albigensianism co-existing just fine with Catholicism) undermined the authority of the papacy and the Catholic church in general. The northern "French" nobles like Simon de Montfort who participated in the resulting crusade were pretty much just in it for the territories/holdings promised by the pope. Modern France owes much of its shape and culture homogeneity (e.g. the slow decline of Occitan) to the aftermath of the crusade.

On this subject, I can add something useful. People out of France tend to think France is one homogenous land with a widespread parisian culture when it's just one tribe, the franks, who slowly dominated anyone they met in the vicinity. Of course, bloodlines in power changed over the centuries, merovingians, capetians, carolingians... but all of them had the same roots.

Catharism isn't something you'll see taught in schools, because it goes against the belief France was always united. There is a belief here called jacobinism, who emerged during the XVIIIth century, where the state, to paraphrase Louis XIV, is everything. But the concept is much more older. France is one country, indivisible, and Catharism went against that because an indivisible country calls for an indivisible religion. Protestantism was revoked with the Edit de Nantes partly because of this. It was not the best move but the unconscious french ideology was preserved.

Greed was a factor in the Catharism extermination, but there were more things at work.

 

I could say more on this but it would be a complete derailment. And I'm not good enough with english to talk about slow cultural dominations. I'd like too though. It's frustrating.

Just one final word: French people of course feel french but the more people study their regional history, the more they become regionalist. Occitania, Corsica and Britanny are asking for more autonomy nowadays. It's really limited though.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Auxilius

[anek]

@J.E. Sawyer, @Auxilius:

 

Most circulating literature about the European witch-hunts still relies in part on outdated and incomplete research, based on sporadic evidence and lots of extrapolation. (Much of it based on primary research that was done by pre-20th century historians, who did not apply the same scientific standards as are established today).

 

Just a few years ago, though, historians from several European universities completed a big original research project, in which the phenomenon was investigated truly comprehensively and thoroughly for Europe as a whole for the first time. They unearthed and processed lots of new primary evidence, and managed to actually map out the phenomenon area for area and decade for decade quite well.

 

Several of their results are quite surprising, in that they contradict a lot of popular belief about the phenomenon. For example:

• It did not happen in the middle of the dark ages, but actually peaked during the very late middle ages and early renaissance.
  

• The percentage of women among the victims was previously over-estimated. They account for roughly two thirds on the whole, so still the majority, but not anywhere near 90%.
  

• The total number of victims was largely over-estimated by many earlier reports. Still many thousands, but not millions like some postulated.
  

• It was not spread evenly across Europe. Not even close. Most of it happened within what is now Germany, and a considerable part of that within a single diocese, while many other areas remained unaffected.
  

• It was in most cases instigated by independent itinerant preachers, whose extreme scaremongering and incitement against alleged witchcraft and the like was rejected even by the leadership of the Catholic church (or at least, the higher levels of leadership)[1]. In fact, in several cases the church sent out inquisitors to hunt down the instigators. However, the local church authority of affected towns more often than not chose to become complicit in the murders, even against orders of their superiors.
  

• Once the phenomenon got a foothold in a town or region, it quickly grew beyond fanatical religious believers. Traders and craftsman denounced their competitors (plus their families) as witchcraft users, authority figures (both secular and church authority) their rivals, commoners their neighbors, etc... Once an accusation was made, it was often "guilty unless proven innocent", and in many cases a straight death sentence. Which led people to make even more accusations against their fellow citizens, out of pure fear that otherwise the latter would denounce them first. Women were an easy target, due to the mythology of supernatural practices associated with women as J.E. Sawyer explained above, and because they could rely on even less protection from the law than men.
   
  It's truly scary to think that a local community can turn on itself like that, but it happened in many, many towns and regions, and spread like fire.
  

-----------------

[1] This does not, of course, exculpate the Catholic church's rule during the middle ages in any way. It instigated its fair share murder, torture, and oppression alright... just not in this case, or at least not for the most part of it.

Edited September 23, 2012 by anek

[Auxilius]

It's truly scary to think that a local community can turn on itself like that.

Well, no matter what comes out of this, it's a great recipe for a quest.

[Umberlin]

I also agree that there should be all varieties of women and men in the game (young-old, skinny-obese, rich-poor, beautiful-ugly, mighty-powerless,...), in all social positions and I think that implementing "sexy" non-functional armour would ruin the games atmosphere (except of course if it also were non-functional ingame: Chain Mail Bikini: Armor Rating 0).

On the other hand, I really liked that in Arcanum the physical starting attributes were slightly different (but overall balanced), depending on the characters sex. It would give the game realism, yet it's a dangerous thing to do, regarding negative publicity.

 

That said, one final remark: I don't have anything against erotics and sex in games, as long as they stay confined to situations where they fit the atmosphere.

Agreed.

 

What I want is for (1) the world to make sense and for me (2) to be given the chance to cause changes in it.

Also, there should be conflict in that world and allow the player to take sides or impose his own. This is not a my little pony world.

 

(1)

- if women are warriors, let them be wear light plate armor like Joan of Arc

- if they are harlots in a tavern, let them show cleavage

- if they are clerics of a church, let them be humble and in appropriate robes

- if they are witches or priestesses of an evil cult, and if the occasion fits, let them be virtually naked and act like sex succubus to charm/seduce the PC or some of his companions (Ulysses and sirens anyone?) when outside of battle (non-combat skills). And if the player is smart, let him dispel her illusion spell and see her true form.

 

(2)

- if I want to play as a paladin preaching gender equality, human/elf/dwarf rights, and race equality, then let me do so

- if I want to play to play as a misogynist slaver, then give me that possibility (and before someone comes preaching "that is wrong mkay", let me say that I'd also love to have a drow alike race where females are in charge, due to cultural reasons, strength or plain intelligence)

 

This is not a "let me shove my morals upon you and teach you about democracy with the use of lethal force"

THIS IS SPARTA a cRPG!

 

I have a question about your (1) list, what about just female Wizard or Sorceress style character that isn't in an evil cult? Since the female 'wizard/sorceress' styled companion tends to pop up a lot in fantasy games. I'm not trying to poke holes I'm honestly curious since you were so thorough.

[D3xter]

The real travesty was not the witch trials, but the witch burnings (and other executions) that occurred without trial throughout Europe. As much as we look back on witch trials as barbaric and superstitious, they were actually the cutting edge of civilization and dispassionate rationalism, at the time.

It's rather funny how people are talking about witch trials and burnings in past tense as they wouldn't still be happening *today* widespread in several countries throughout Africa: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/books/how_modern_day_witch_trials_are_LgfeNAhgpuUSeUNyh9IG2K

 

There are even rather graphic videos of this still happening in Kenya, Ghana and similar places as far back as 2011.

 

It's always hit me as rather ironic when people rather get outraged over what they deem "objectification" and treatment of video game or movie characters and similar and let modern feminism fall into ill repute with borderline insane sounding arguments regarding perceived gender inequality on LEGOs and pure bickering over trivial matters, when there is still so much actual work to be done around the world.

[-TK-]

I don't mean to sound like a heartless ****, because I do feel for the people affected by these real and very horrible issues, however: we were talking about the witch trials in Europe during the middle ages, as you well know.

 

And really, this is a game forum, you can't get more trivial in the grand scheme of things, this isn't really the place for soap boxing.

[J.E. Sawyer]

Thanks for that information, Auxilius.

 

It did not happen in the middle of the dark ages, but actually peaked during the very late middle ages and early renaissance.

 

The percentage of women among the victims was previously over-estimated. They account for roughly two thirds on the whole, so still the majority, but not anywhere near 90%.

 

It did start in the "High" Middle Ages, but those inquisitions were usually targeted reactions to heresies like Albigensianism and Waldensianism. Its slow transformation into something that targeted "Satanists" peaked well into the Renaissance. Humanism did the victims of witch-hunting no favors (see: Jean Bodin's De la démonomanie des sorciers/On the Demon Mania of Sorcerers). The number of women tried and executed varied by location. In some places, it was, in fact, as high as 90%. Later witch-hunts invariably skewed toward a more "egalitarian" (if you can really call it that) representation by sex because inquisitorial procedure that "discovered" a witch also often resulted in the subsequent search for a coven. I.e. admission of guilt by an individual did not end pursuit; it simply began the search for his or her (still typically her) fellow conspirators.

 

The total number of victims was largely over-estimated by many earlier reports. Still many thousands, but not millions like some postulated.

 

Yes. Many of the witch-hunts = women-hunts writers (I hesitate to call them historians) were also responsible for inflating these estimates almost to Black Death levels. It's actually pretty easy to chart population growth in Europe following the spread of the plague. If witch-hunts killed as many as some of these writers suggested (and with 90% of them women across the board, as they suggest), a constant 50%-60% infant mortality rate would not yield the reported population growth.

 

It was not spread evenly across Europe. Not even close. Most of it happened within what is now Germany, and a considerable part of that within a single diocese, while many other areas remained unaffected.

 

It was in most cases instigated by independent itinerant preachers, whose extreme scaremongering and incitement against alleged witchcraft and the like was rejected even by the leadership of the Catholic church (or at least, the higher levels of leadership)[1]. In fact, in several cases the church sent out inquisitors to hunt down the instigators. However, the local church authority of affected towns more often than not chose to become complicit in the murders, even against orders of their superiors.

 

Also true. The HRE was the center of the later hunts. The Malleus Maleficarum was actually poorly received by the church, but it caught hold in popular imagination (thanks, Gutenberg). It was a case where the church was actually pretty reasonable but the populace went nuts.

 

In Austria it was actually the Empress Maria Theresa who called an end to the hunts. Many individual magistrates were already throwing charges out by that time, but she basically said, "Yeah this is all a bunch of B.S. knock it off."

 

Once the phenomenon got a foothold in a town or region, it quickly grew beyond fanatical religious believers. Traders and craftsman denounced their competitors (plus their families) as witchcraft users, authority figures (both secular and church authority) their rivals, commoners their neighbors, etc... Once an accusation was made, it was "guilty unless proven innocent", and in many cases a straight death sentence. Which led people to make even more accusations against their fellow citizens, out of pure fear that otherwise the latter would denounce them first. Women were an easy target, due to the mythology of supernatural practices associated with women as J.E. Sawyer explained above, and because they could rely on even less protection from the law than men.

 

It's truly scary to think that a local community can turn on itself like that, but it happened in many, many towns and regions, and spread like fire.

 

The consequence both of hysteria and of inquisitorial procedure that suggested that where you found one witch, others were also present. The consistency of trial transcripts in many of these cases is likely due to the fact that interrogation subjects were asked to confirm or deny loaded, very specific questions. Once you admitted to being a witch, you had (unknown to you!) implicitly admitted to being part of a coven. If you denied being part of a coven, you clearly needed to be interrogated more (in case it needs to be said, torture was a common element of interrogation in OLDE TYMES, usually carried out by secular authorities -- witch-hunting was not unique in this regard).

 

EDIT: Whoops, massive derail. If someone wants to start a good-ol' witch-huntin' thread in another subforum, I'll carry on the conversation.

[Djole]

I'd sooner talk to this guy.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6gLmcS3-NI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpFk5F-S_hI

[Syraxis]

I'm new to the forums. Is there an 'unlike' button?

 

In all the time he's posted here I've not seen anything that wasn't provocative and / or disputatious. At first I thought he was a clever troll using a .alt then I realised he was just an old-skool troll. Get him onto Stalin. He'll defend purges, famines and genocide. The guy is, literally, vile.

 

I tried to look for an ignore function on this forum but appears there is none so I have instead decided to not respond to him anymore

 

You can manage ignores by:

 

- Click your username in the top left corner of the site ~> Manage ignore prefs

[hideo kuze]

I have a question about your (1) list, what about just female Wizard or Sorceress style character that isn't in an evil cult? Since the female 'wizard/sorceress' styled companion tends to pop up a lot in fantasy games. I'm not trying to poke holes I'm honestly curious since you were so thorough.

 

Well, isn't it obvious!?

Completely naked as well also. So that she automatically casts charm upon horny male

 

From http://www.justinsweet.com/

 

All of these are great in my book.

 

 

 

Some may wonder about this last portrait "hey, she's showing her cleavage. You lying bastard! Get him!"

The important thing to ask is: does it fit the character?

 

When I look at these last two portraits, this is what I think of:

1st) vivid colored robe, staff, headband...

She looks like someone that is a member of some magi order.

 

2nd) shows cleavage and legs, solid expression...

She looks like someone that isn't afraid to resort to both wits and charms. Possibly because she isn't part of any magi order and as such is possibly on her own.

 

And curiously enough, all of those first 3 pictures would work great as evil witches/wizards/casters.

Just because they're evil doesn't imply they should have to run around half naked.

 

Like I said: does it fit the world? does it fit the character?

Edited September 24, 2012 by hideo kuze

[Monkcrab]

<snip>

 

Actually, I pointed out there is nothing wrong with targeting a particular group to cater too because there isn't. Trying to cater to everyone is a recipe for disaster, you simply cannot please everyone nor should you.

 

"Women don't play RPGs, so there's no need to make RPGs that (contain features which) cater to women."

 

Go back in time a little bit, and this becomes :

 

"Women don't read books, so there's no need to write books that (contains elements which) cater to women."

 

"Women don't do activity X, so there's no need for activity X to cater listen to the concerns of women."

 

I don't want to prolong the point, but really, THIS is one of the reasons why yes, you should try to cater to women. They're 50% of the population, after all, and perhaps once more women has figured out that they don't have to like barbies because all games for girls are about barbies and Babysittingz, RPGs might find a new market, sell more, and we might be in less of a predicament where 90% of games are made solely---not just cater---to the whims of teenaged males. Older, wiser males benefit, too! Opening genres up to women has led to diversification of said genre through the ages, while closing off a genre tends to simplify it to a greater degree. It's got to start SOMEWHERE.

 

See this is the other examples I hate. Oh, we are supressing women by not making them anything but equel in EVERY piece of work. Regardless if its real or fictional. Then we have the argument that opening up games will have more women interested in it...um, games are already open to women. There are whole gaming sections that are dedicated to it, in fact there are gaming groups that only make games for women. Now, the argument that if rpgs were more open to women they will magically come is just silly. I see this argument used in every debate like this and its nothing more than wishful thinking. There are more women playing hardcore games, but not by much, until we get some real numbers its debatable. However, I love that to get these *potential* women players, we have to take stuff away that a lot of *real* old school players like.

 

Let me ask this back to you : did you read what I wrote? I never said we need to make women equal in every piece of work. You're only reading what you wish to hear.

 

What I said, specifically, is that it is important that women's concerns are listened to when creating a piece of work, and not just shot down because 'it's not for them'. Because it will NEVER be for them, in that case. This does not necessarily imply that 'all women in games must be treated with equity'. That's idiotic. Not all women in books are empowered, and it's important that they are not empowered where they're not supposed to be, setting-wise. What it DOES imply is that, one CANNOT just dismiss their concerns just because it's 'not their place.'

 

What do stuff that 'real (male) oldschool players like' do you have to take away to listen to women's concerns, exactly? Is 'historical inequity for women' that important for oldschool RPG players? Skimpy armor? Sex-object women? Is that what you look for in RPGs? Is this important to being oldschool? Are you suggesting that by making RPGs appeal to women, they all have to contain features like Facebook games, barbie games? Can we have no discussion of gender at all, and women JUST have to be unequal because RPGs are all based on Medieval Europe and that's just the way it was? What are oldschool players losing that is so important that they cannot afford to lose, that they can dismiss the other 50% of the human population?

 

I don't think that's what you want to say, but once again, listen to what you're actually saying. It's very easy to say that 'they don't want what I want, and what I want are not what they want' when you never ask or try to offer what they want in the first place.

 

And yes, if games of any type appeal more to women, they WILL 'magically' come, because they're not as predisposed towards the whole 'women don't play games' trope as you'd like to believe. It's been that way for EVERY SINGLE KIND OF MEDIA in the past. I don't see why it will not be for games. What is so special about RPGs that it defies every prior historical example?

 

Also, if you say 'games are already open to women, there are groups that already make games dedicated to women', HAHAHA. Oh my god, that is RICH. What games would those be, pray tell? Babyz? Dress up? Cooking Mama? Facebook games? Don't say the Sims, btw, that's made for both genders, women just decide to play them more.The otome games made by Japan doesn't count, btw.

 

But I suppose you are set in your views, because that's how opinions are. I will sound like the feminist bastard trying to convince you that P:E need to have politcally correct female empowerment, when I am only trying to say that 'dismissing female viewpoints on traditionally male subjects because they're female is a fallacy'. And you will continue to insist that the old way is the ONLY way to be, because they offer what you like, so why should they change? This is a subject with strong opinions. It's because it's a subject with strong opinions not liable to change, that it has became a cultural issue.

 

I've said all that I wish to say on the subject, and may others who did not press the skip button at the sight of the post make their own judgements.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Monkcrab

[J.E. Sawyer]

Getting back on topic, I (non-scientifically) noted that for DS3, criticism of Katarina's character design far outweighed criticism of Anjali's design despite the fact that Anjali spends half of the game effectively naked. I think this speaks to the question of, "Does this fit the character?" and how people look at different designs.

[Dragoonlordz]

I tried to look for an ignore function on this forum but appears there is none so I have instead decided to not respond to him anymore

 

You can manage ignores by:

 

- Click your username in the top left corner of the site ~> Manage ignore prefs

 

Much appreciated, thanks.

[rjshae]

Gender equality in the West happened because of the industrial revolution, which significantly diminished the economic value of muscle mass. I'd imagine it would happen in a fantasy setting as a result of magic. (Plus there are a few special cases like Amazons and Valkaries.) But for a PC it doesn't really matter; you're a special case regardless of your gender.

Edited September 24, 2012 by rjshae

[limaxophobiacq]

This might be sorta off topic, but any women on here wanna explain how in the HELL this trope allegedy "demeans and exploits women:"

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rhH_QGXtgQ

 

 

Not saying all women consider this trope offensive, nor am I trying to say "stupid opinion!11" But in all honesty, how a sci-fi trope about pregnancy could be considered exploitation or demeaning? That's beyond me. If someone considers it so, please explain, cause I'm curious to hear what the perspective that agrees with her sounds like.

 

 

Not sure what she says in the video (and also not a woman), but a mystical pregnancy where the woman gets impregnated without her consent is if not technically rape (though you sure could argue that it is*) at the very least pretty rape-y and clearly a violation of her body. But a lot of the time in fiction the person or being responsible for making her pregnant is treated like he's a totally decent person who has done nothing wrong by everyone around, including supposedly good enlightened people like the Enterprise crew.

 

*Edit: Actually if you drugged a girl IRL and inseminated her while she's out (which is basically what the guys responsible for mystical pregnancies are doing) I'm fairly sure that you should get a rape charge.

 

Edit 2: Actually watched the video. Umm... well she seems to think that any horrific mystical pregnancy is bad, I think because it's an exclusively female body-horror experience written (in her opinion poorly) by men and that inflicting it on female characters somehow normalizes this sort of violation and that it's never shown to have the long-term emotional impact it should have? I'm not really sure what she's going for. Personally I think very little that happens in television is shown to have the long-term emotional impact it should have.

Edited September 24, 2012 by limaxophobiacq

[Dragoonlordz]

Getting back on topic, I (non-scientifically) noted that for DS3, criticism of Katarina's character design far outweighed criticism of Anjali's design despite the fact that Anjali spends half of the game effectively naked. I think this speaks to the question of, "Does this fit the character?" and how people look at different designs.

 

I think there are many variations on peoples reasoning for x, y or z reactions. From those who want to be immersed in the world, the enviroment and it's lore which have higher regard to characters portrayed as would expect in the theme of the game, the world in which they live in and societies formed with that fantasy world. Then there are another example of those who are more in for the enjoyment of visual aspect and general fun but less interested in the social and economic realities of the world you created.

 

There are also some here that think your game should conform to their social and political stances... Despite the harsh reality of the struggle to survive I am sure will be reflected in the game, that somehow everyone is equal and no racism, no sexism and that the values in the game somehow mirror this utopian level of morality and social justice... I find it strange to say the least because the massive amount of disbelief that would create and destruction of immersion would be immense. If I can't believe in the world because of forced political and social correctness then thats a large detriment to the quality of the game.

 

A good example is the difference between those who would go around the world and read all the books (like Skyrim) they find with lore or stories that take place in the world vs those who just want to kill dragons and see how many people they can hit by throwing sweetrolls off a balcony. In the end with a world that has less evolved and higher strife, where people struggle to get by and others take advantage of the poor you expect to see darker themes played out and in those themes prositution, murder, genocide, brutality are far more common place. In such games such themes should not be sugar coated because it breaks the immersion of the very world you created.

 

In such worlds equality is far from reality and any game with such setting must keep true to the reality of that world not the ideals of this one.

Edited September 24, 2012 by Dragoonlordz