Gender stereotypes surface in suprising ways...

[Tatile]

Seriously? Are you people having that hard of a time distinguishing sarcasm and using peoples own logic to show the flaw in their argument and hypocrisy vs being deadpan serious?

 

I can't say I've really been keeping up to date with this thread, so I'm not one of the "you people" you're angry at, but if my question is so far off topic, fine.

[Hyfy]

I can't say I've really been keeping up to date with this thread, so I'm not one of the "you people" you're angry at, but if my question is so far off topic, fine.

 

You confuse anger with being baffled by responses. Either way even on that very page I address the fact of using the very logic of people crying sexism and oppression against them as they feign outrage for one but ignore the other in regards to same armors showing more skin on men than for women.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Hyfy

[chimex]

You confuse anger with being baffled by responses. Either way even on that very page I address the fact of using the very logic of people crying sexism and oppression against them as they feign outrage for one but ignore the other in regards to same armors showing more skin on men than for women.

 

Ok, would you object to armour pieces looking the same for both male and female? Personally, that is what I would like to see. For me at least, is the issue of a double standards when it comes to certain armour pieces.

 

http://tor.zamimg.com/torhead/uploads/images/12910.jpg

 

Like the Aspiring Knights Vest, for example.

 

Yes, there are topless men running around while there are no topless women. However, you cannot claim that one single chestpiece is equal to the differences in several outfits + slavegirl. The fact that female breasts are covered more often than men strengthens the notion that they are more sexualized.

[Arutar]

Is showing female breasts going to desexualize the bags of fat?

 

Because that really is why the female chest is covered - it is considered to be inherently sexual and, by extension, offensive.

 

Did I get this right?

 

If you are arguing for removing female bras, you are actually fighing the oppression females have to suffer because of male stereotypes which sexualize female breasts? (I mean, it appears to work for the feminist group femen in real life)

 

Or did you mean something else?

 

So, naked breasts: good, tight dancers outfit: bad?

 

Geez, being PC sure gets harder every year...

[Hyfy]

Ok, would you object to armour pieces looking the same for both male and female? Personally, that is what I would like to see. For me at least, is the issue of a double standards when it comes to certain armour pieces.

 

http://tor.zamimg.com/torhead/uploads/images/12910.jpg

 

Like the Aspiring Knights Vest, for example.

 

Yes, there are topless men running around while there are no topless women. However, you cannot claim that one single chestpiece is equal to the differences in several outfits + slavegirl. The fact that female breasts are covered more often than men strengthens the notion that they are more sexualized.

 

No I wouldn't object to them looking the same but I also don't care if they don't look the same either. And are you really claiming that the fact that there is more clothes on women is now equal to being sexualized more? So before it was "we have less on so we're sexualized more" and now its "in those cases we're wearing more so we are sexualized more". Now you want it both ways?

[LadyDrusilla]

Do you really want to look male and female armor the same?

 

If, in some cases, (like relaxed jumpsuit/uniform/covert energy armor) this would mean bare breast for females (because males have no bra), this would be ok for you? And if not: Why?

I want the armour to look identical, yes. Obviously it will be in a different shape as women have a different shape.

 

The relaxed jumpsuit is clothing, not armour. You will note I have not complained once about the sexualised clothing options, but ARMOUR which is supposed to be protective. It is also a meaningless comparison because we both know that BW would never do such a thing due to the obsession with female breasts as naughty, sexual objects

 

Hyfy, the issue is sexualised ARMOUR not sexualised clothing. A topless women should not be considered shameful or offensive but she shouldn't be going into battle naked. The issue here is for the sake of 'hotness' womens armour is rendered impractical through its sexualisation. The slave girl costume or dancers outfits do not have this issue because they aren'r pretending to be arnour except in he basic game mechanic sense.

 

Did I get this right?

 

If you are arguing for removing female bras, you are actually fighing the oppression females have to suffer because of male stereotypes which sexualize female breasts? (I mean, it appears to work for the feminist group femen in real life)

 

Or did you mean something else?

 

So, naked breasts: good, tight dancers outfit: bad?

 

Geez, being PC sure gets harder every year...

No, naked breasts: good impractical, sexualised armour: bad.

 

Sexy clothing: Good.

 

It also comes down to CHOICE. There wouldn't be an issue if there were sensible and revealing types of each available for people to choose, but there isn't. We just get revealing.

Edited April 25, 2013 by LadyDrusilla

[Arutar]

The relaxed jumpsuit is clothing, not armour. You will note I have not complained once about the sexualised clothing options, but ARMOUR which is supposed to be protective. It is also a meaningless comparison because we both know that BW would never do such a thing due to the obsession with female breasts as naughty, sexual objects

 

[...]

 

No, naked breasts: good impractical, sexualised armour: bad.

 

Sexy clothing: Good.

 

Sorry, but relaxed jumpsuit is ARMOR (adaptive armor to be precise). There is no "clothing" category in the game.

 

But besides this nitpicking, I still do not fully undertstand:

 

If showing naked female breasts is ok for you from a sexualization point of view (because its the only male mindset who appreantly has them sexualized in the beginning anyway), then why does the same not apply to, say the bare midriff of a female shown as part of some "sexualized" armor you, on the other hand, oppose?

 

Also, as a further thought, do you think that males and females have to dress exactly the same way from head to toe because otherwise there will be always unwanted objectification/sexualization?

[Helig]

You realise that highlighting examples of less capable women getting ahead because they look good in no way invalidates what I'm saying, right? Nor your example of resentment from women who don't want to put in that effort. Nor your example of respecting a woman more for being both talented and taking care of her appearance (which isn't a bad thing, unless you would respect her less if she didn't take care of herself).

The pressure is only there if you see it that way. If you expect the same treatment with less effort.

 

Might surprise you, but men in respectable business and higher civil service positions also need to "look their best". You must have a clean shave, or your beard carefully trimmed. You need a clean haircut. You need several business suits. You need to have a healthy complexion, no matter how much stress you go through. You must have an upright posture and firm walk. You must have smooth, clean speech. You must take care of your hands.

 

Unless you are in an exceptionally right time in an exceptionally right place with an exceptional idea, you will have to work with "the system" - the informal "club" of "important" people who are much more likely to associate themselves with you - and help you along if you "look your best". In addition to professional qualities, of course. Those go without question.

 

TL;DR version - Life is unfair. Evolution is unfair. Both genders have their specific burdens as well as advantages. Instead of complaining about the disadvantages, seize the advantages and leave the negative-thinkers in the dust.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Helig

[Jeweledleah]

Wow you are daft. You seriously couldn't see how I was engaging in the same righteous indignation routine, using your own logic to make a point about how ridiculous you and your argument was? So you ARE hypocritical and you ARE having issues with comprehension. As I said before get over yourself.

 

no honey. you are engaging the "no U" and "I was just making a joke" routine and trying to make things that are not ok - as if they are ok.

 

I'm so sorry my desire for equality is getting in a way of your privilege and status quo. but I do understand why you fight so hard now. because things ARE changing.

 

Dear Bioware armor designers. thank you for trying and I do appreciate the many times when you get it right.. now please no more chestpieces that turn into crop tops on females and do add more skimpy armor variety for males. you know, to balance out all the slave girls. making people like hyfy and a few others uncomfortable? well that's just a nice bonus.

 

as for gender inequality - it is SOCIETAL and it can be changed. HAS been changed. otherwise, we'd still have slavery and segregation and all the other "joys" that people used to think were perfectly fine and stop rocking the damn boat, you instigators.

 

crop tops? minor issue. reaction of some of you to even mentioning unfairness of crop tops? THAT's the problem.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Jeweledleah

[LadyDrusilla]

Sorry, but relaxed jumpsuit is ARMOR (adaptive armor to be precise). There is no "clothing" category in the game.

 

But besides this nitpicking, I still do not fully undertstand:

 

If showing naked female breasts is ok for you from a sexualization point of view (because its the only male mindset who appreantly has them sexualized in the beginning anyway), then why does the same not apply to, say the bare midriff of a female shown as part of some "sexualized" armor you, on the other hand, oppose?

 

Also, as a further thought, do you think that males and females have to dress exactly the same way from head to toe because otherwise there will be always unwanted objectification/sexualization?

You are either dense or deliberately trying to misunderstand.

 

Armor value is a game mechanic, we aren't talking about game mechanics. We are talking about aesthetics. How the items look, something completely divorced from game mechanics.

 

Dancers outfits are clothing, they are not armour. They are not intended to protect oneself in battle. Armour is. In order to do that it must cover as much of the body as possible. The male armour does this, the female armour does not. The female armour sacrificed practicality for sexuality. This a (minor) problem.

 

Nudity is not sexualization. Sexualization is the act of sexualizing something, in this case female characters wearing armour. A woman topless or naked is no more inhrently sexualized than a male naked or topless. But when you are wearing what is ostensibly armour in a combat context (albeit fictional) and the practicality of that armour is reduced in order to increase its attractiveness to the opposite sex then it becomes sexualized.

 

This is still not a problem if you can choose whether or not you WANT it to be sexualized, as I said if we had skimpy and non skimpy versions we wouldn't be having this discussion. But we don't.

 

Remember that this only affacts a small number of armours, I've said repeatedly it isn't a big issue and it isn't. It i a small issue. I'm not the one turning this into some life and death struggle of rationality against the perceived evils of feminism or whatever nonsense is going through some peoples heads.

Edited April 25, 2013 by LadyDrusilla

[Sjax]

E-war. E-war never changes. Edited April 25, 2013 by Sjax

[Arutar]

You are either dense or deliberately trying to misunderstand.

 

Armor value is a game mechanic, we aren't talking about game mechanics. We are talking about aesthetics. How the items look, something completely divorced from game mechanics.

 

Dancers outfits are clothing, they are not armour. They are not intended to protect oneself in battle. Armour is. In order to do that it must cover as much of the body as possible. The male armour does this, the female armour does not. The female armour sacrificed practicality for sexuality. This a (minor) problem.

 

Nudity is not sexualization. Sexualization is the act of sexualizing something, in this case female characters wearing armour. A woman topless or naked is no more inhrently sexualized than a male naked or topless. But when you are wearing what is ostensibly armour in a combat context (albeit fictional) and the practicality of that armour is reduced in order to increase its attractiveness to the opposite sex then it becomes sexualized.

 

This is still not a problem if you can choose whether or not you WANT it to be sexualized, as I said if we had skimpy and non skimpy versions we wouldn't be having this discussion. But we don't.

 

1. Thanks for the uncalled for ad hominen insult.

 

2. Sorry that I use the same categorization / terms as the game when talking about the game. Btw, is, according to your logic, a counselor / inquisitor robe armor or not, after all it is light and appears to made of cloth (most of the time) and offers no more physical protection as the jumpsuit, so it must be clothing and no armor then? Thus, showing a bare midriff in a robe (as opposed to, say heavy armor) is ok?

 

3. I agree that you should have a choice how to dress your character. But are there really so many armors (by your definition) which sexualize exclusively females? I honestly cant think of one really (at least if you really count robes as "clothing").

Edited April 25, 2013 by Arutar

[Helig]

 

2. Sorry that I use the same categorization / terms as the game when talking about the game. Btw, is, according to your logic, a counselor / inquisitor robe armor or not, after all it is light and appears to made of cloth (most of the time) and offers no more physical protection as the jumpsuit, so it must be clothing and no armor then? Thus, showing a bare midriff in a robe (as opposed to, say heavy armor) is ok?

 

That complaint is just barely valid with 1 or 2 armour models in the entire game - out of several dozens. Aspiring knight and inquisitor tops are cloth, thus no reduction in perceived "efficiency", but the "indignation"-type Imperial armour, which looks like armour and not cloth - does indeed get an exposed midsection, which I don't really get myself. Would look better with the male-like texture with covered midsection, imo. But even if we count Aspiring and Inquisitor tops, the "sexist" armour is still a drop in the sea.

 

This person certainly loves to blow things out of proportion.

 

Reminds me of the "plight of the endangered Nexu" Republic quest on Taris.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Helig

[Uvirith]

If you are arguing for removing female bras, you are actually fighing the oppression females have to suffer because of male stereotypes which sexualize female breasts? (I mean, it appears to work for the feminist group femen in real life)

Of course breasts are sexualized. Men are programmed to get aroused by their sight.

Don´t blame us, blame the one who coded our Y-chromosome ;-)

[Arlon_Nabarlly]

Nudity is not sexualization. Sexualization is the act of sexualizing something.

 

This isn't really true. You must understand that men and women gain sexual gratification differently. Men gain sexual gratification through visuals, Women don't, at least not to the same extent. Nudity is inherent sexual to men, that's just how they work. Period. This is ultimately while *********** is a much larger draw for men then it is for women, conversely romance novels/soap operas are a much bigger draw for women then for men for the same reason, it's how we're wired.

[LadyDrusilla]

That complaint is just barely valid with 1 or 2 armour models in the entire game - out of several dozens. Aspiring knight and inquisitor tops are cloth, thus no reduction in perceived "efficiency", but the "indignation"-type Imperial armour, which looks like armour and not cloth - does indeed get an exposed midsection, which I don't really get myself. Would look better with the male-like texture with covered midsection, imo. But even if we count Aspiring and Inquisitor tops, the "sexist" armour is still a drop in the sea.

 

This person certainly loves to blow things out of proportion.

 

Reminds me of the "plight of the endangered Nexu" Republic quest on Taris.

 

For gods sake, how many times do I have to say it is minor issue that only affects a few armour pieces? I didn't start the thread, I'm just pointing out that there is an issue here however minor. It is people like you that are blowing it out of proportion, not I.

[Arutar]

Of course breasts are sexualized. Men are programmed to get aroused by their sight.

Don´t blame us, blame the one who coded our Y-chromosome ;-)

 

Right, but does this mean that showing them is reinforcing existing gender stereotypes or opposing it?

 

Or is it simply a choice of personal preference and aestheics?

[tanerb]

Never understand this thinking type . It is totally Ok to slaughter people left and right but big breasts are no go because they are sexist.

[Uvirith]

Right, but does this mean that showing them is reinforcing existing gender stereotypes or opposing it?

Or is it simply a choice of personal preference and aestheics?

I think its a necessity to cover them up. Thats no matter of equality or stereotypes. It´s a simple fact that female breasts are private parts. Men can´t do anything but react to it accordingly.

[LadyDrusilla]

Arutar, you are right, I shouldn't have called you dense and I apologise. But I get the distinct impression that regardless of what I say there are people here who are trying to make out that this is some kind of feminist assault on SWTOR going on here.

 

I'll try and spell it out simply:

 

A very few armour pieces in SWTOR are unnecessarily and inexplicably sexualised. This is a problem, albeit a very minor problem, because women are subjected to a great deal of sexualisation in every day life. SWTOR is escapism which lets us leave our every day lives and be heroes. Seeing the same sort of enforced sexualisation creep into our (women) escapism can be disheartening. Fortunately in SWTOR there is a vast catalogue of non-sexualised armour to choose from if we want to, so the problem is a very, very minor one. It would be great if it wasn't there at all but it is not a big deal.

 

I think its a necessity to cover them up. Thats no matter of equality or stereotypes. It´s a simple fact that female breasts are private parts. Men can´t do anything but react to it accordingly.

False, attraction to breasts is a cultural construction, there are many cultures which do not have a breast fetish the way Western culture does. Many see them as signs of femininity and fertility but not of sex.

Edited April 25, 2013 by LadyDrusilla

[Arlon_Nabarlly]

False, attraction to breasts is a cultural construction, there are many cultures which do not have a breast fetish the way Western culture does. Many see them as signs of femininity and fertility but not of sex.

 

Half true. It's not a cultural construction, but different cultures have different focuses / ideas as far as what is most sexual. Also the reason why breasts are often key in fertility imagery is partial because of their sexual component. It has to do with their place in the cycle of life which includes, sexual attraction, sex, birth, and nurturing, ect. A lot of cultures that include fertility worship also include ritual sex as part of their religious practices.

[LadyDrusilla]

Well, primarily cultural then. There are cultures which have no discernible breast fetish. I attended an anthropology seminar on some once, Papua New Guinea has some and I believe the original Carib tribes were mentioned historically. Edited April 25, 2013 by LadyDrusilla

[MoobooMagoo]

I think its a necessity to cover them up. Thats no matter of equality or stereotypes. It´s a simple fact that female breasts are private parts. Men can´t do anything but react to it accordingly.

 

WARNING: This is a bit of a rant

 

The New York court of appeals would disagree with you. They said that making a law saying you have to cover up the area of the body on one gender but not the other is discrimination.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/nyctap/I92_0160.htm

 

That is just in New York. I am too lazy to research any other places.

 

My point is that it IS a matter of equality because the entire idea of a 'private part' is a societal construct, not an absolute truth. As such, it is discriminatory to tell one person that a particular area of their body is indecent and another person that same area of their body is not based solely on their gender.

 

And what about transgender people? If a man has a breast augmentation surgery and dresses like a woman is it suddenly indecent for him to take his shirt off in public? Why? What if he instead decides to use hormone therapy and grows breasts naturally, would he then not be able to take his shirt off? What if he does that and gets gender reassignment?

 

What is the point where it is suddenly indecent? It can't be the size of the breasts, otherwise men with gynecomastia would not be able to go topless and women who were either flat chested or have had a mastectomy would be able to. It can't be the ability to produce milk, otherwise it would only be illegal for women who are currently nursing to take their shirts off. It can't be the mere presence of mammary glands (which aren't visible anyway) otherwise it would be fine for transgender men to take their shirts off.

 

Basically, it IS discriminatory to say women can't go topless. The only way it wouldn't be is if it were also illegal for men to take their shirts off. Otherwise you are saying that it is wrong for someone to do something based solely on their gender (or perceived gender) which is very much discrimination.

 

RANT OFF

 

On topic:

I agree that we should have more options for skimpy armor for men.

Edited April 25, 2013 by MoobooMagoo

[Kaedusz]

feel a bit uncomfortable when I see that women are able to be practically naked under the cover of wearing a slave girl (!) outfit, but the men still have to wear pants/robes (or if a covert energy legs exist, its no longer available on the GTN, and it should have been from the start to provide a male alternative). The fact that it's a slave girl outfit just adds to the insult.

 

Doesnt' work that way.Unless we are asari(mass effect race) and we are all male or we are all female there are always going to be stereotypes.And for a good reason.And there is nothing wrong with that.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Kaedusz

[JediJonesJr]

I feel a bit uncomfortable with the same sex crap that was added but i am sure most of you that pushed for it do not care.

 

i am cool with the outfits they have offered to show off the sexy side of those who choose to play females.

 

again i stand by the comment i made in recent post, COSMETICS to This game should be the last thing on the list to do, there are many bugs and things that this game needs done now and should have all resources working on to improve and all the time invested rewritten same sex into the story lines and the cosmetic crap should be put on hold til those issues we all know exist are resolved, you need to make a choice you want cosmetics or better overall performance and less buggy game content.

 

Priorities are good shame many worry about crap that won't affect game play.

 

if bw/ea continues this path this founder will be leaving soon this game is great it's time bw/ea realize they could do so much more and stop emphasising on cosmetics that also includes cartel packs which they seem to have man power for that but not enough for competent customer service.

Edited April 25, 2013 by JediJonesJr