The Lurkdragon's Lair

Fifty percent animals, fifty percent fandom, one-hundred percent nerd.

Posts tagged feminism

5,728 notes

bikiniarmorbattledamage:

micdotcom:

Stephanie Kwolek, the inventor of Kevlar, passed away this week at age 90

"A true pioneer for women in science," passed away on Wednesday, reported the New York Times. As a DuPont scientist, Stephanie Kwolek is credited for inventing Kevlar in 1964, a fiber that has radically improved police and military body armor since its creation.   

Kwolek died at age 90 in hospice care at St. Francis Hospital in Wilmington, Del. She leaves behind a legacy of achievement in science and technology that directly saved an estimated 3,000 lives of police officers over the past four decades.

Read more | Follow micdotcom 

So recently there was a post (I’m not going to dignify it with a link) claiming that women don’t deserve representation because they haven’t contributed to heroism.  We already have a post showing a small sample of the many women have been heroic warriors in the past - now we’d like to showcase a woman who’s protected thousands of heroic warriors.

Not only is Kevlar used in the vast majority of military and paramilitary armors, it also what made discreet bullet armor worn by VIPs, covert operatives and protective services possible.  It is truly one of the most important innovations in the history of armor.

Rest in peace Stephanie Kwolek, and thank you for protecting so many.

- wincenworks

(via zada2011)

Filed under stephanie kwolek feminism rock on sads obituaries queue

57,358 notes

ryttu3k:

ladynorbert:

smalldisgruntledcorgi:

honestly if you dont think like, the tumblr feminist scene, with all the occasionally cheesy kawaii-aesthetic misandry art, hasn’t had an impact on anyone at all like

you dont remember what the average teen girl in a fandom was like before this. you don’t remember how we used to make hate-sites about female characters who “got in the way”, games where you could beat them up, how much we hate our gender and bragged about not being like other girls, used to completely reject everything girly. a lot of us just wanted to be one of the guys. there was a lot of internalised misogyny there

now you get these 15 year old girls loving other girls and loving themselves fiercely, even at the total cost of male approval and just. god. if like 14-year-old me could see this shit now. 

and like if you dont think teen girls learning to love themselves and their body and each other isnt important than i do not know what to say to you

Actually, you’re right: I don’t remember what it was like. When I was a teenager, there WAS no internet. I’m just sitting here now, as a member of the media and a quiet but fierce mentor-type to you young things, watching as the next generation slowly and systematically dismantles things like misogyny and racism and all those other horrible things.

And I wish, I wish, I was young again. Because what’s happening now, what all of you are bringing about now, would have made so much difference to the teenager I used to be. Keep on doing what you’re doing. The world is changing and it’s about damn time.

Gundam Wing fandom, circa 2000, was fucking packed with Relena hate sites, hate fic, hate art, hate meta. Why? Because she ~got in the way~ of Heero and Duo (a pairing that overwhelmed basically the entirety of fandom). Sites that dismissed her based on her first five or so episodes and completely ignored the fact that she had some serious character development, and the girl we saw in episode 49 was not the girl we saw in episode one.

I am so in favour of young fans today actually going, “Hey, yeah, these female characters are pretty rad!”

I remember, like, vehemently hating Amy Rose from Sonic for silly reasons like her being very pink and very excitable.

Now, toned down only slightly from canon’s flanderization, she’s one of my favourites.

(Source: cephalodogs)

Filed under long posts feminism rock on queue

165 notes

jetstreamsamofficial:

"how about if we made this character into a woman?"
"that would be super neat. there’s not enough women in this franchise. i would enjoy that"

[proceeds to give them long hair, big-ass titties hanging out, a totally different and sexualized outfit, a more submissive and ‘cutesy’ personality, ruining all characterization entirely]

"wait but—"
"I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU WANTED MORE FEMALE CHARACTERS STOP COMPLAINING!!!!!"

(via darkwizardjamesmason)

Filed under yep feminism queue

7,401 notes

transgirladventures:


This example is mostly in ‘female-empowerment’ circles, but it comes up everywhere. Binary Trans people are expected to live up to ridiculous extremes for their gender in order to be accepted as credible. And if we don’t, then we get the lovely comment of “If you wanted to do X so much, why didn’t you just stay as your birth gender”. THAT’S NOT HOW IT WORKS. And most people aren’t even conscious of it. But if you have ever thought that of course that transwoman didn’t pass, she won’t even shave her legs! Or that transman shouldn’t be wearing such feminine clothes YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. YOU ARE SUPPORTING AND FORCING GENDER STEREOTYPES ON US. AND WE WANT YOU TO STOP.

My boyfriend wrote a lovely rant to go with this post.

transgirladventures:

This example is mostly in ‘female-empowerment’ circles, but it comes up everywhere. Binary Trans people are expected to live up to ridiculous extremes for their gender in order to be accepted as credible. And if we don’t, then we get the lovely comment of “If you wanted to do X so much, why didn’t you just stay as your birth gender”. THAT’S NOT HOW IT WORKS. And most people aren’t even conscious of it. But if you have ever thought that of course that transwoman didn’t pass, she won’t even shave her legs! Or that transman shouldn’t be wearing such feminine clothes YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM. YOU ARE SUPPORTING AND FORCING GENDER STEREOTYPES ON US. AND WE WANT YOU TO STOP.

My boyfriend wrote a lovely rant to go with this post.

(via the-goggles)

Filed under mogii rock on feminism queue

86,018 notes

Being a woman is kind of like being a cyclist in a city where all the cars represent men. You’re supposed to be able to share the road equally with cars, but that’s not how it works. The roads are built for cars and you spend a great deal of physical and mental energy being defensive and trying not to get hurt. Some of the cars WANT you to get hurt. They think you don’t have any place on the road at all. And if you do get hurt by a car, everyone makes excuses that it’s your fault.
A friend of a friend (via onesmallflowerofeternity)

(via zada2011)

Filed under yep cycling feminism queue

413 notes

ryttu3k:

sinsofthesage:

ryttu3k:

xelestial:

ryttu3k:

Some quick photoshopping. Original image on the left, my version on the right.

Is she not allowed to show a little skin? To each his or her own I guess, but I think the original is fine. It’s practical enough with a little punch of femininity. Unless there’s something else I’m missing. To add more clothes gives up some of the whimsical look they seemed to be going for.

If she was just a princess sitting around in the castle? Yeah, it’d be fine. But Zelda is an active combatant in this. The miniskirt-and-thigh-high combination is basically unnecessary, so I gave the poor girl some actual leggings - the shape of the dress itself isn’t bad, it allows free movement, but you don’t want her legs to be too exposed.
As for the upper body, she basically has boob cutouts. The purple corset thing looks to be pretty sturdy, might have some boning in there, and would be good extra protection for her stomach, but that leaves the upper part of her chest, throat, and arms completely exposed. The armour dips down pretty low on the sides in the original, you see? So an arrow or blade would be able to puncture her lung or even her heart, both from the side under her arm, and above the breast cup (also not a good idea, actually, since any blunt force will drive the edge straight into her sternum).
Now, granted, fabric isn’t going to protect her completely, but it DOES act as a slight protection, and more to the point, it doesn’t wave a big flashing sign that says HEY LOOK AT ME I’M A VULNERABLE POINT. Plus, it serves as another barrier just for environmental concerns - we’ve already seen a lava stage, there’s probably going to be a lot of arduous elements to deal with, and you don’t really want bare skin there.
I mean, weird miniskirt-and-thigh-highs thing aside, she’s not showing any more skin than in, say, Twilight Princess, and I have zero problems with that costume. I think her costume is really pretty, and is suitable for a character that mostly just sits around quietly, or at least attacks from a great distance. But when she’s being an active melee combatant, you need a little more protection.
(I also personally think it’d be more practical if her hair was in a braid that was wrapped around her head, since, as it stands, it could be easily grabbed (or hell, she could whack HERSELF in the face if she spins around too fast!), but that’s beyond my ability to photoshop, heh.)
Why does adding more clothes mean it’s less ‘whimsical’? I don’t see people saying that Link’s costume isn’t fitting, and literally all we can see of his skin are his fingers, throat, and face!

As a game designer in training in only a few years it will be me behind the lines designing characters for games, and I’m afraid to make a mistake that might offend people. Offending people, realistically, will always be a thing, but I don’t want to alienate masses of people either if I can help it.
I think both designs are fantastic in my honest opinion, and though I did grow up in the ages where scantily clad women was always (and I mean always) the normal and seeing the stomach and tops of boobs and thighs has gotten boring, I still rather like it. Not from a sexual appeal stand point, it’s just, a girl showing a bit of skin is not a bad thing, or a guy for that matter. Specially in a design like Zeldas up there on the right. She’s not in any showing skin for the sake of it, not like I expect there to be epic boob jiggle in the game or anything… although it is Team Ninja… but regardless I don’t think that designs bad at all. In fact I think it’s a fantastic and refreshing take on Zelda we have not had before.
This being said your edit on the right OP is awesome too. More coverage gives us designers more to work with. More chances for decorating and a better ability to incorporate culture into a character. More covered, as you also mentioned above, is logical from a fighting stand point.
But, being too logical is really stunting too. In design for the arts, and in real life. Restrictions on what an artist is allowed to design a character in, should we really impose restrictions?
I really do enjoy this idea the fandom is implementing that more coverage is needed, specifically for certain characters, but it shouldn’t be such a thing for every character. Some characters should still be allowed to bear a little here to there, have long hair flowing in the wind, face uncovered by a helmet, whatever they want; other wise we’ll find every one covered from the neck down.
So I just want to ask because being a game artist is a dream of mine, but I’m also a gamer and a fandom community member and I really want to know where everyone thinks we should draw the line? Which restrictions should I impose upon myself in future designs to not offend the female gamers out there? And I’m being completely serious here, what’s okay and what’s not? Can I ever have a character expose some skin, and if so how much? And if it’s the villain is it okay? Or only heroine? What’s the safe area now?
Please someone serious answer me cause I’m trying in honest to impose some serious questions here. And if I’m not understanding then please help me too because I’m a guy and while I think I get it, maybe I don’t I don’t know for sure.

Hey there, thanks for a really well-thought-out reply!
So, you asked where you draw the line between logic and design, and my honest opinion is that you don’t have to draw the line - logical design can be gorgeous. My edit is fundamentally no different from the one on the left, aside from the coverage. It still has what I think are the standout features of the design - the armour (aside from the danger that armour like that would pose, since it’d press into her sternum - a smoother profile without moulded cups would help reduce that), the split dress, and the crown. The colours are the same (and I actually think having her arms covered in the dark fabric makes the pink under the shoulder armour pop out more), the detailing is the same.
The big question you should be asking isn’t, “Where do you have to be logical, which characters can you loosen up on?”, it’s, “What is logical for this individual character?” Every character will (or should!) have their own unique role in a game, so their costuming should be tailored for that role. If Zelda had the same position as some of her predecesors, in that they were less active, her outfit would be fine. However, she’s going to be out there in the middle of melee combat, and so you have to ask what works for both the character, taking into account their position and role in the story (Zelda and Impa are both combatants in the game, but they have very different costumes!), and what works for the role they will be playing (active fighters).
Outfits that reveal skin? Long, flowing hair? Sure, they have their places! But does it make sense for the internal logic of the world? Put yourself in that character’s shoes, and ask, “If I was this person, if I had to go do what they had to do, what would I be wearing?”
And yeah, some characters would dress for flamboyance and drama rather than logic, that’s true. But here, you do have to tread carefully, because you are making these characters up from the start. A lot of people defending Cia’s outfit are saying, “Well, she’s probably just sexually confident and isn’t ashamed of her body, so she’s more comfortable with showing her skin!” But they’re ignoring the fact that she was created by a development team, who made the conscious decision to have her almost naked. Zelda was designed by a development team, who made the conscious decision to leave skin exposed, and there is rather a lot exposed, as you can see in this screencap:

Look at how much of her torso is exposed there! It would be so easy for an enemy to sneak up behind her and stab her in the chest, or an opportunistic archer could fire at her, and at that point, it’d catch (depending on the angle and side) her lungs, heart, or spine. Not exactly places you want to be stabbed!
Zelda is supposed to be intelligent and wise. If she knew she was going out into a battlefield (and she is more armoured than usual - note the boots and greaves, chest pieces, gauntlets, pauldrons, and whatever those hip pieces are called), why would she pay so little attention to the part of her body where her internal organs are kept? I’d rather be protecting my entire torso than, say, my shins!
You asked whether there are different standards for antagonists versus protagonists, and I don’t think so. Everything needs to work to internal logic, and every character - no matter what their role - needs to have their design carefully considered.
And just before I finish up this long-winded ramble, I do want to add another point. There’s been a lot of comments, largely from men, who think that people protesting Cia or Zelda’s designs as ‘oversensitive’, and claim that male character design is often unrealistic as well. To that end, I’d like to point out that while, yes, male character designs can be unrealistic, they’re usually male power fantasies - they’re muscular, powerful, strong people who are capable of doing whatever the story depends on them doing. When female characters are designed unrealistically? They’re usually sexualised and overexaggerated - large breasts, wide hips and a narrow waist, long legs, round and prominent buttocks, long hair, revealing clothing (and revealing clothing, incidentally, can be completely covering, too - Zero Suit Samus is a good example of a character whose outfit is completely revealing and overly sexualised while still covering her skin), often contorted into various painful-looking shapes. They’re not a power fantasy for women - they’re a sex fantasy for men. Power fantasies for women do exist, but even they can be unrealistic at times! (Fem!Shep, from Mass Effect, has a thigh gap. Why does a military woman have a thigh gap?! Yes, okay, it’s to do with pelvis shape, but that’s in the real world and fem!Shep is a video game character, so why intentionally design her with something that’s meant to be sexually appealing?)
Dynasty Warriors, as a franchise, may have some pretty ridiculous character designs, but Zelda (as a general rule) does not, and the characters that do tend to show skin have that as part of their character role. Telma is a bartender, a role where she would be playing up sex appeal. The Great Fairies are magical, non-human beings, and are never in a position where their nudity would be problematic. Midna is in a similar position, and if you watch her demo in Hyrule Warriors, she’s actually mostly using wide-ranged magical attacks with her hair - she doesn’t let people get close enough to hit her. The only one who seems to be sexualised for the sake of being sexualised is Veran, who appeared as a tiny sprite in-game and thus wouldn’t exactly be displayed on a big TV screen in all her skin-bearing glory, who people have compared Cia’s design to as if that makes it okay. (It doesn’t. Both are fairly objectifying.) If you’re coming in to Hyrule Warriors as a Zelda fan, as I and a lot of others are, then yeah, those designs seem completely unnecessary.
And all this sexualisation and objectification would be iffy but ignorable if it just happened occasionally. But it happens over and over and over again, and we are thoroughly sick and tired of it.

ryttu3k:

sinsofthesage:

ryttu3k:

xelestial:

ryttu3k:

Some quick photoshopping. Original image on the left, my version on the right.

Is she not allowed to show a little skin? To each his or her own I guess, but I think the original is fine. It’s practical enough with a little punch of femininity. Unless there’s something else I’m missing. To add more clothes gives up some of the whimsical look they seemed to be going for.

If she was just a princess sitting around in the castle? Yeah, it’d be fine. But Zelda is an active combatant in this. The miniskirt-and-thigh-high combination is basically unnecessary, so I gave the poor girl some actual leggings - the shape of the dress itself isn’t bad, it allows free movement, but you don’t want her legs to be too exposed.

As for the upper body, she basically has boob cutouts. The purple corset thing looks to be pretty sturdy, might have some boning in there, and would be good extra protection for her stomach, but that leaves the upper part of her chest, throat, and arms completely exposed. The armour dips down pretty low on the sides in the original, you see? So an arrow or blade would be able to puncture her lung or even her heart, both from the side under her arm, and above the breast cup (also not a good idea, actually, since any blunt force will drive the edge straight into her sternum).

Now, granted, fabric isn’t going to protect her completely, but it DOES act as a slight protection, and more to the point, it doesn’t wave a big flashing sign that says HEY LOOK AT ME I’M A VULNERABLE POINT. Plus, it serves as another barrier just for environmental concerns - we’ve already seen a lava stage, there’s probably going to be a lot of arduous elements to deal with, and you don’t really want bare skin there.

I mean, weird miniskirt-and-thigh-highs thing aside, she’s not showing any more skin than in, say, Twilight Princess, and I have zero problems with that costume. I think her costume is really pretty, and is suitable for a character that mostly just sits around quietly, or at least attacks from a great distance. But when she’s being an active melee combatant, you need a little more protection.

(I also personally think it’d be more practical if her hair was in a braid that was wrapped around her head, since, as it stands, it could be easily grabbed (or hell, she could whack HERSELF in the face if she spins around too fast!), but that’s beyond my ability to photoshop, heh.)

Why does adding more clothes mean it’s less ‘whimsical’? I don’t see people saying that Link’s costume isn’t fitting, and literally all we can see of his skin are his fingers, throat, and face!

As a game designer in training in only a few years it will be me behind the lines designing characters for games, and I’m afraid to make a mistake that might offend people. Offending people, realistically, will always be a thing, but I don’t want to alienate masses of people either if I can help it.

I think both designs are fantastic in my honest opinion, and though I did grow up in the ages where scantily clad women was always (and I mean always) the normal and seeing the stomach and tops of boobs and thighs has gotten boring, I still rather like it. Not from a sexual appeal stand point, it’s just, a girl showing a bit of skin is not a bad thing, or a guy for that matter. Specially in a design like Zeldas up there on the right. She’s not in any showing skin for the sake of it, not like I expect there to be epic boob jiggle in the game or anything… although it is Team Ninja… but regardless I don’t think that designs bad at all. In fact I think it’s a fantastic and refreshing take on Zelda we have not had before.

This being said your edit on the right OP is awesome too. More coverage gives us designers more to work with. More chances for decorating and a better ability to incorporate culture into a character. More covered, as you also mentioned above, is logical from a fighting stand point.

But, being too logical is really stunting too. In design for the arts, and in real life. Restrictions on what an artist is allowed to design a character in, should we really impose restrictions?

I really do enjoy this idea the fandom is implementing that more coverage is needed, specifically for certain characters, but it shouldn’t be such a thing for every character. Some characters should still be allowed to bear a little here to there, have long hair flowing in the wind, face uncovered by a helmet, whatever they want; other wise we’ll find every one covered from the neck down.

So I just want to ask because being a game artist is a dream of mine, but I’m also a gamer and a fandom community member and I really want to know where everyone thinks we should draw the line? Which restrictions should I impose upon myself in future designs to not offend the female gamers out there? And I’m being completely serious here, what’s okay and what’s not? Can I ever have a character expose some skin, and if so how much? And if it’s the villain is it okay? Or only heroine? What’s the safe area now?

Please someone serious answer me cause I’m trying in honest to impose some serious questions here. And if I’m not understanding then please help me too because I’m a guy and while I think I get it, maybe I don’t I don’t know for sure.

Hey there, thanks for a really well-thought-out reply!

So, you asked where you draw the line between logic and design, and my honest opinion is that you don’t have to draw the line - logical design can be gorgeous. My edit is fundamentally no different from the one on the left, aside from the coverage. It still has what I think are the standout features of the design - the armour (aside from the danger that armour like that would pose, since it’d press into her sternum - a smoother profile without moulded cups would help reduce that), the split dress, and the crown. The colours are the same (and I actually think having her arms covered in the dark fabric makes the pink under the shoulder armour pop out more), the detailing is the same.

The big question you should be asking isn’t, “Where do you have to be logical, which characters can you loosen up on?”, it’s, “What is logical for this individual character?” Every character will (or should!) have their own unique role in a game, so their costuming should be tailored for that role. If Zelda had the same position as some of her predecesors, in that they were less active, her outfit would be fine. However, she’s going to be out there in the middle of melee combat, and so you have to ask what works for both the character, taking into account their position and role in the story (Zelda and Impa are both combatants in the game, but they have very different costumes!), and what works for the role they will be playing (active fighters).

Outfits that reveal skin? Long, flowing hair? Sure, they have their places! But does it make sense for the internal logic of the world? Put yourself in that character’s shoes, and ask, “If I was this person, if I had to go do what they had to do, what would I be wearing?”

And yeah, some characters would dress for flamboyance and drama rather than logic, that’s true. But here, you do have to tread carefully, because you are making these characters up from the start. A lot of people defending Cia’s outfit are saying, “Well, she’s probably just sexually confident and isn’t ashamed of her body, so she’s more comfortable with showing her skin!” But they’re ignoring the fact that she was created by a development team, who made the conscious decision to have her almost naked. Zelda was designed by a development team, who made the conscious decision to leave skin exposed, and there is rather a lot exposed, as you can see in this screencap:

Look at how much of her torso is exposed there! It would be so easy for an enemy to sneak up behind her and stab her in the chest, or an opportunistic archer could fire at her, and at that point, it’d catch (depending on the angle and side) her lungs, heart, or spine. Not exactly places you want to be stabbed!

Zelda is supposed to be intelligent and wise. If she knew she was going out into a battlefield (and she is more armoured than usual - note the boots and greaves, chest pieces, gauntlets, pauldrons, and whatever those hip pieces are called), why would she pay so little attention to the part of her body where her internal organs are kept? I’d rather be protecting my entire torso than, say, my shins!

You asked whether there are different standards for antagonists versus protagonists, and I don’t think so. Everything needs to work to internal logic, and every character - no matter what their role - needs to have their design carefully considered.

And just before I finish up this long-winded ramble, I do want to add another point. There’s been a lot of comments, largely from men, who think that people protesting Cia or Zelda’s designs as ‘oversensitive’, and claim that male character design is often unrealistic as well. To that end, I’d like to point out that while, yes, male character designs can be unrealistic, they’re usually male power fantasies - they’re muscular, powerful, strong people who are capable of doing whatever the story depends on them doing. When female characters are designed unrealistically? They’re usually sexualised and overexaggerated - large breasts, wide hips and a narrow waist, long legs, round and prominent buttocks, long hair, revealing clothing (and revealing clothing, incidentally, can be completely covering, too - Zero Suit Samus is a good example of a character whose outfit is completely revealing and overly sexualised while still covering her skin), often contorted into various painful-looking shapes. They’re not a power fantasy for women - they’re a sex fantasy for men. Power fantasies for women do exist, but even they can be unrealistic at times! (Fem!Shep, from Mass Effect, has a thigh gap. Why does a military woman have a thigh gap?! Yes, okay, it’s to do with pelvis shape, but that’s in the real world and fem!Shep is a video game character, so why intentionally design her with something that’s meant to be sexually appealing?)

Dynasty Warriors, as a franchise, may have some pretty ridiculous character designs, but Zelda (as a general rule) does not, and the characters that do tend to show skin have that as part of their character role. Telma is a bartender, a role where she would be playing up sex appeal. The Great Fairies are magical, non-human beings, and are never in a position where their nudity would be problematic. Midna is in a similar position, and if you watch her demo in Hyrule Warriors, she’s actually mostly using wide-ranged magical attacks with her hair - she doesn’t let people get close enough to hit her. The only one who seems to be sexualised for the sake of being sexualised is Veran, who appeared as a tiny sprite in-game and thus wouldn’t exactly be displayed on a big TV screen in all her skin-bearing glory, who people have compared Cia’s design to as if that makes it okay. (It doesn’t. Both are fairly objectifying.) If you’re coming in to Hyrule Warriors as a Zelda fan, as I and a lot of others are, then yeah, those designs seem completely unnecessary.

And all this sexualisation and objectification would be iffy but ignorable if it just happened occasionally. But it happens over and over and over again, and we are thoroughly sick and tired of it.

Filed under long posts rock on feminism legend of zelda hyrule warriors queue

2,631 notes

policymic:

The 8 biggest lies Men’s Rights Activists spread about women

Unfortunately, despite their activist moniker, MRAs do not generally use their networks to create meaningful change. Instead, they often parrot the same talking points on the bottom of articles about women’s issues to prove that men are, in actuality, the more oppressed gender. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes their rhetoric as “dedicated to savaging feminists in particular and women, very typically American women, in general.”

These are just a handful of the most pernicious myths put forth by MRAs to convince the world that (white, cis, heterosexual) guys are the ones who really have it bad.

Read more | Follow policymic

(Source: micdotcom, via zada2011)

Filed under rock on feminism mras queue

185 notes

On making excuses instead of female player characters

howtonotsuckatgamedesign:

Even a casual observer must admit that there is a massive imbalance between male and female playable characters in commercially released video games overall, not to mention a almost complete invisibility of LGTBIQ characters:

However, men and women IRL roughly exist in equal numbers and LGTBIQ people also exist as well…
…so where does this discrepancy come from?

Companies like Ubisoft try to explain it with technical limitations. Making female characters is just too expensive. …mainly because the developers are not prepared to make female characters, they are only prepared to make male characters:

Their mocap is done by a male. Their IPs are male-centric. Their selected scenarios are male dominated. Their creative teams are full of guys.

And those companies – it’s really not the first time this excuse got used – claim that the effort it takes to make female characters in this male-character-optimized infrastructure is impossibly high, like a hard border keeping them from doing it.

Literally: “We were doing male characters forever now and kinda don’t know how to do women at this point.” – how is this supposed to not expose them as sexist ignorant failures? How is this supposed to work as an excuse?

Thankfully – people who should know are calling out that bullshit (see last reblogs). 

But we really do not need “official” confirmation for our skepticism, do we?

This years E3 is about one thing: New hardware opening up new possibilities. Even if we are super super generous and just grant them their petty concerns when it comes to last gen game development… 

For fuck’s sake how can you take any pride in working in AAA games today, when the supposedly massive new tech and exploding budgets do not grant you the ability to provide your HUGE fan base the experience of playing a female Assassin…

…something that Ubisoft has done already in fucking 2010 with Assassin’s Creed Brotherhood.

…something that Ubisoft has done already with Assassin’s Creed Liberation on a fucking handheld console!

And there is no way for you to put a woman into your upcoming multiplayer? ..set during the french revolution?

image

Yeah, sure, we can build a new city – bigger and more complex than anything we built before – and populate it with citizens and create thousands of animations for pedestrians, market vendors, guards, workers, royalty, beggars…
… but c’mon, female character in multiplayer? We are no wizards? Game development is hard and costs money. Get real!

And here is the thing:

THEY KNOW THEY ARE NOT FOOLING US!

They know we don’t swallow it. The know we laugh at them, if we are not screaming at them. …and they don’t care.

We are demanding better representation – loudly, clearly, repeatedly – for years now. And they take care of other things.

And their excuses are not there to calm us down. They are there to provide ammo and reason for privileged gamer assholes to keep insisting there is no problem.

…to keep silencing women. 
…to pretend like critics are full of shit and don’t understand the realities of game development.

This “explanation” from an official source – an authority – is no attempt to make peace with critics. It’s an attempt to rile up the horde in hopes the horde will shut the critics down for them.


(via caramelzappa)

Filed under long posts feminism mogii representation queue

39,199 notes

jimtheviking:

morganbaskinto:

#YesAllWomen because this is just a small sample of what I get to my PROFESSIONAL email and Facebook accounts. 

Just a reminder to all of you that this woman is running for Mayor of Toronto.  She is looking to be, arguably, the third most powerful politician in Ontario, and this is the shit she gets.

(via thebicker)

Filed under feminism what the fuck

3,119 notes

ohaityler:

aka14kgold:

stfufauxminists:

ppaction:

The Supreme Court just struck down the buffer zone law in Massachusetts — a commonsense law that protects patient and public safety while balancing free speech rights. This isn’t over. Women deserve to be able to visit their doctor — and make private medical decisions — without being harassed or intimidated.

So as folks who follow my blog know - I’m a clinic escort.
And I just know that I’m gonna have a shit day at work tomorrow and Saturday.
Because the Supreme Court has just emboldened misogynistic bullies and those who would murder clinic workers to continue their assault on the right of patients seeking sexual health services and abortion to be left alone.
There’s a reason my co-workers at the clinic ask me if “the mean ones are still out there”. There’s a reason why the patients I take into the clinic are so happy to see me.
And it’s not because anti-choicers are just exercising their right to “free speech”.
I mean I guess if someone comes to my job every week and calls me a murderer and a whore, that’s just free speech, not harassment.
This SCOTUS decision was a ridiculous, huge mistake that will only put clinic workers and patients at more risk. 

FREE SPEECH DOES NOT COVER ASSAULT.
WHAT CLINIC PROTESTORS DO IS ASSAULT.
THIS IS NOT OKAY. The five conservative SCOTUS Justices are shitting all over this country’s history and future.

the ruling was 9-0, literally all of them, even judges i would consider and think were on my side ruled in favor of allowing these folks to yell and demean me on my way to get a medical procedure. disgusting. i am angry

ohaityler:

aka14kgold:

stfufauxminists:

ppaction:

The Supreme Court just struck down the buffer zone law in Massachusetts — a commonsense law that protects patient and public safety while balancing free speech rights. 

This isn’t over. Women deserve to be able to visit their doctor — and make private medical decisions — without being harassed or intimidated.

So as folks who follow my blog know - I’m a clinic escort.

And I just know that I’m gonna have a shit day at work tomorrow and Saturday.

Because the Supreme Court has just emboldened misogynistic bullies and those who would murder clinic workers to continue their assault on the right of patients seeking sexual health services and abortion to be left alone.

There’s a reason my co-workers at the clinic ask me if “the mean ones are still out there”. There’s a reason why the patients I take into the clinic are so happy to see me.

And it’s not because anti-choicers are just exercising their right to “free speech”.

I mean I guess if someone comes to my job every week and calls me a murderer and a whore, that’s just free speech, not harassment.

This SCOTUS decision was a ridiculous, huge mistake that will only put clinic workers and patients at more risk. 

FREE SPEECH DOES NOT COVER ASSAULT.

WHAT CLINIC PROTESTORS DO IS ASSAULT.

THIS IS NOT OKAY. The five conservative SCOTUS Justices are shitting all over this country’s history and future.

the ruling was 9-0, literally all of them, even judges i would consider and think were on my side ruled in favor of allowing these folks to yell and demean me on my way to get a medical procedure. disgusting. i am angry

(via thebicker)

Filed under what the fuck feminism