T̶u̶m̶b̶l̶r̶ wofl Megathread

[WaterOre]

Quite honestly, I don't see anything wrong with a female villain, so long as she isn't hyper-loveualized. In all reality, the villain is a position in a game with high influence and power over how the storyline takes place, and she commands a legion of <insert baddies here> to do her every evil will. When she gets defeated at the end of the game, it's a hero/heroine knocking a psychopath from a spot of high power where they were ruining everyone's life from.

But what do I know, I'm just a triangle wearing a top hat.

[Ad Bot]

[childofdarkness016]

There is one major character in the game. If you wanted to add a female character, it would require paying more modelers, more voice actors, more storyboard artists, and basically more of everything. Sometimes it's not about perpetuating some myth that women aren't heroes, it's just the reality of development.

Please, the whole Assassin's Creed thing is bullstuff. It's not going to cost more money to create a female character unless they want to recycle and recolor the same male model. That just seems like laziness to me.

I can only agree with voice actors being an extra cost, but I think a big-name company can handle that. Even Nintendo made a jab towards them, so this is really just people defending laziness.

Statistically speaking there are much more male villains than female villains, so if you're going to say that having a female villain is a negative representation of women, then you have to say the same thing about men. Of course the only alternative is to complain about how there aren't enough female villains, which doesn't make sense if you'll just turn around and complain about it being a negative representation of women. Hence the major failure of 'feminist media criticism': It's an endless cycle of complaining about stuff that artists couldn't fix even if they wanted to.

The issue isn't that women are villains. Female villains are fine. Again, the complaining is not about the fact that female villains are misogynist, it's that there's a lack of major female characters, which was apparently disproven but I haven't looked into it.

holy stuff are you for real?

I was half-joking, but it's pretty much the same reason why Shakespeare's play Macbeth is considered his most misogynist.

thats the problem though
people like the person running that blog would have been more offended by a depiction of women being victimized (being murdered by insane people) or being demonized (being the insane people). Better to swerve past that beehive honestly

also, the writing in that game is pretty good as far as horror goes. particularly in whistleblower a lot of it is downright terrifying

Yeah, the game looks good tbh. I've played plenty of games that can be considered misogynist (EARTHBOUND COUGH COUGH, and it's one of my favorite games) but it doesn't affect me too much. It's an issue, yeah, but I'm not going to complain about it too much.

my point is that misogyny isn't as bad as it was and really most people who sorta display it didn't intend it.

Yeah, I agree with you here.

also my opinion is exactly the same as waterore's if that helps clarify anything

[Jubel]

I was half-joking, but it's pretty much the same reason why Shakespeare's play Macbeth is considered his most misogynist.

That would make sense giving the time period of when women were still property.
Who gives a flying forget if ancient history was "loveist" and "misogynistic". That's how the world worked back then, and history isn't bound to change.

[childofdarkness016]

That would make sense giving the time period of when women were still property.
Who gives a flying forget if ancient history was "loveist" and "misogynistic". That's how the world worked back then, and history isn't bound to change.

You can still brown townyze and learn from past texts. I'm not saying that history should have been different, nor am I offended by it, it's just people have studied his texts and interpreted them with a modern lens. I don't really see how I'm wrong for comparing the two?

And the reason the text was considered misogynist had nothing to do with women being property. Most of the female characters are manipulating men (usually using seduction iirc) so

If you haven't made the connection, the point is that both examples demonize women and are therefore misogynist.

[SeventhSandwich]

Please, the whole Assassin's Creed thing is bullstuff. It's not going to cost more money to create a female character unless they want to recycle and recolor the same male model. That just seems like laziness to me.

You are vastly underestimating the amount of money and employees needed to make a commercially-successful video game. Do you think that all Ubisoft has to do is import their model into Blender and add a 'turn female' modifier? They have to completely resculpt the model, change the skin textures, face, etc. They have to re-do all the armatures for the animations because the sizing is different. They have to pay people to write an extra character into the story. And all of this is done by employees who are paid with an hourly wage. You have literally no clue what you're talking about.

Female villains are fine.

so victims and villains

yeah it's still not really positive but at least it's not devoid of women?? Not sure which is better tbh

But 10 minutes ago you clearly said that female villains are not a good thing.

I was half-joking, but it's pretty much the same reason why Shakespeare's play Macbeth is considered his most misogynist.

"But the play Macbeth finally represents the mentally ill in society! Our media perpetuates the myth that mental illness does not exist and is not an issue by never featuring any mentally ill characters in books. But finally, Shakespeare is bringing light to this under-represented group that are seldom seen in literature! She's even a woman too!"

This is how dumb you sound, and this is another example of why this type of media criticism can be applied to absolutely /anything/. You can cast /anything/ in a positive or negative light by complaining about who is represented in it and who isn't.

[Taboo]

No matter what you do, dumb ass feminists will point out some inane ass flaw in it that is a horrible crime against women. Name anything, it applies.
This is a large part of why the "movement" is a complete and utter joke.

FYI: Men are constantly loveualized too. I don't see how it's a problem for anybody.

[SeventhSandwich]

No matter what you do, dumb ass feminists will point out some inane ass flaw in it that is a horrible crime against women. Name anything, it applies.

Taboo is completely right and I can prove it.

Give me any book, film, or form of media and I will make a clear point of how it's discriminating against someone using the exact same rhetoric and language that internet feminists do.

[Jubel]

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

[Dreams_Of_Cheese]

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

yadda yadda overeating becoming a good thing yadda yadda
of course, then you have all of those fat acceptance people who will immediately refute that and tell that caterpillar to keep on eating if it makes him happy or some stuff

[childofdarkness016]

You are vastly underestimating the amount of money and employees needed to make a commercially-successful video game. Do you think that all Ubisoft has to do is import their model into Blender and add a 'turn female' modifier? They have to completely resculpt the model, change the skin textures, face, etc. They have to re-do all the armatures for the animations because the sizing is different. They have to pay people to write an extra character into the story. And all of this is done by employees who are paid with an hourly wage. You have literally no clue what you're talking about.

I don't think you do either. It's not like doing that is any different if you want well-designed male characters that aren't carbon copies of the protagonist. Unless modelers are specialized in making different lovees, then I'm pretty sure it's just a little bit more effort on their part.

But 10 minutes ago you clearly said that female villains are not a good thing.

You're wildly misinterpreting the point. It's not bad that's there's female villains, it's bad that there are no redeemable factors for said female villains.

"But the play Macbeth finally represents the mentally ill in society! Our media perpetuates the myth that mental illness does not exist and is not an issue by never featuring any mentally ill characters in books. But finally, Shakespeare is bringing light to this under-represented group that are seldom seen in literature! She's even a woman too!"

????

Outlast has nothing to do with Macbeth in the context of my argument, and Macbeth has nothing to do with the mentally ill anyway??

This is how dumb you sound, and this is another example of why this type of media criticism can be applied to absolutely /anything/. You can cast /anything/ in a positive or negative light by complaining about who is represented in it and who isn't.

does that make media criticism bad? You can make any point about anything with the right evidence, but that doesn't mean the point is valid. That's common knowledge.

FYI: Men are constantly loveualized too. I don't see how it's a problem for anybody.

whoo boy

yeah men are loveualized but only for things marketed for women (and sometimes what anti-feminists call loveualization isn't even loveualization??)

women tend to be loveualized in more gender-neutral products which is the problem

I'm honestly fine with loveualization of characters in anything, as long as it fits with the character and isn't done to every female/male character.

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

it's not misogynist?? I don't remember the caterpillar's love but it honestly doesn't mean anything because it have a positive or negative representation of either love regardless?

[mp7964]

savagesz.tumblr.com

i'm a huge friend and i post tracks that i'm working on because i'm a huge friend.

[Taboo]

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

Fat shaming, glorification of beauty, setting unrealistic expectations, written like children are illiterate.

yeah men are loveualized but only for things marketed for women

WHAT

[SeventhSandwich]

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

"The Very Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle is an offensive, patriarchal story that perpetuates many myths about gender and people of size. The story opens with the following lines: 'In the light on the moon a little egg lay on a leaf.' Eric Carle illustrates for us an excellent introductory setting to the rest of his book, but this is truly where his attention and respect towards different groups other than white, cisgendered, typical-bodied humans ends abruptly. The problematic language in The Very Hungry Caterpillar begins on the fourth page, where Carle describes how 'He started to look for some food. On Monday he ate through one apple, But he was still hungry'. Although the story takes place in a third-person, observant perspective, the author pays little attention to the inner feelings of the caterpillar. He labels the caterpillar as a male because of the caterpillar's outside, yet does not choose to make clear that the caterpillar even wishes to identify as a male. How is the narrator supposed to know that the caterpillar is cisgendered and identifies with their given love? Carle perpetuates the myth that people can only identify with the gender they are given at birth, and furthermore ignores the feelings of the caterpillar by applying a gender-specific pronoun that the caterpillar DID NOT ASK FOR.

Furthermore, the author immediately begins to stereotype the caterpillar's image not even half way through the novel. Pages 4 through 10 feature Carle describing all of the food that the caterpillar eats, paying no attention to the caterpillar's thoughts or emotions or anything of substance. It's merely just the narrator building up to the /real/ message on page 11. That the caterpillar is 'big' and 'fat'. Immediately Carle is using negative language, berating the caterpillar for making his own personal dietary choices and deciding his own body image. It's immediately clear that the author is perpetuating the idea that people of size have no self control and should be mocked and labeled for their own choices.

As we can see, Carle's novel's real aim isn't to teach kids about caterpillars or their life cycle, but to /shame/ people of size and act as if transgenderism does not exist. I believe that this book should be taken out of the reading curriculum of public schools and be rewritten to be more attentive to the transgender and overweight community"

[childofdarkness016]

WHAT

Yes, because a man would absolutely want to buy this product because the guy is lovey! This isn't loveualization, it's supposed to show what the ideal man looks like and that he's using this brand of deodorant. It'd only be loveualization if he was talking about how he would only have love with a guy who wears this deodorant, which is not the case. Context is everything.

-snop-

way to attack a stawman

[SeventhSandwich]

I don't think you do either. It's not like doing that is any different if you want well-designed male characters that aren't carbon copies of the protagonist. Unless modelers are specialized in making different lovees, then I'm pretty sure it's just a little bit more effort on their part.

I think you're missing the point. Every character model you make takes hundreds of hours of labor on the parts of the modelers and artists. It's not that the modelers cannot model women, but that it costs a hell of a lot of money to put another major character into a game, female or male. I'm really starting to get the sense that you have no clue what you're talking about and have never developed anything close to a videogame before.

You're wildly misinterpreting the point. It's not bad that's there's female villains, it's bad that there are no redeemable factors for said female villains.

Uh, villains are supposed to be one-dimensional. Half the time in a movie the villain's motives aren't even established. It has nothing to do with gender. Villains are characteristically flat.

Macbeth has nothing to do with the mentally ill anyway??

Why are you using Macbeth as an example if you've never even read it before? Are you really this stupid?

does that make media criticism bad? You can make any point about anything with the right evidence, but that doesn't mean the point is valid

It makes it useless.

way to attack a stawman

You only think it's a strawman because I wrote it. I literally know people who have written ironic feminist-critiques of movies and sent them to feminist journals, which then published them. This is /actually/ how dumb you sound. No strawman necessary.