Leanne had a lot of up-skirts, but I don't think it really counts as sexualized since all the characters were doing flips and stuff.
Also without the panty-shots taken into consideration her attire was pretty modest.
Greater inclination towards physical fighting? Less parental instincts? Males having an instinct towards protecting females? Society is a far more complex mixture of variables and influences than it used to be I think, because I think it used to be (I mean thousands and thousands of years ago, sort of mid-evolutionary times before the accumulation of capital and private property even) far more about what was absolutely the most efficient, rather than fair or just. Again, I'm certainly not saying that males never or rarely display the characteristics mentioned above, merely that I think they're more inclined towards those, on average, than females. This isn't intended to be a value judgement.
Okay, now we have a list, how do you justify it? Throughout history women have fought. In ancient viking culture, women and men fight alongside each other, particularly to defend the home front. Women were often kept out of fighting by cultural training but this says nothing about inclinations. Parental instincts? How often is this relevant in a video game scenario (especially in a way that's not forced)? Protectiveness? Do women not have a protective instinct towards the men in their lives? So the new question is, can these traits listed not also apply to women and thus make legitimate characters, or must some traditionally feminine behavior also be applied before a female character can be a "real woman" and not just a "man with boobs"?
Kaltagesta said:
Understood, and I agree, but it rather goes without saying doesn't it?
Not in my experience. A lot of discussion like this treat what goes on in the game industry as though it was its own universe and doesn't acknowledge the big picture or address how it fits into the big picture.
Kaltagesta said:
That the way a society informs its people will subsequently inform their reading of characters. And it's true - but I'm not sure why that's relevant to the discussion at hand, insomuch as good characters can always be made. Characters written now might not be considered "good" in 100 years, as the societal understanding of gender roles evolve, but the audience is us, here and now, not people in the future. I don't see social equilibrium (not that I think that'll ever happen) as some sort of end point - it's just yet another variation of society, just another on a long time line of slow changes. And, in any one of those societies, you could create characters (even if those characters inhabit wholly different societies) that are engaging and interesting and don't mould to stereotypes, or break stereotypes in an achingly obvious way.
You're going a little too far with this. I was only qualifying the focus of this thread.
Kaltagesta said:
In fact, this discussion we're having is a great example of such an environment - Are there traits that can be said to be more common in men than women? Is it all purely nurture as opposed to nature? Could a character be written that's universally seen is interesting and good, throughout societal changes, or will they always be a relic of the time in which they were conceived? The society we live in, evidently, is one in which these discussions are taking place. In 100 years, we'll probably know at least which path society has trodden more down - one that treats all humans as having equal traits and abilities, or one that treats all humans as having equal worth but different leanings based on gender. But either way, the society we're in now is one in which is this discussion takes place, and so that's the society in which a good character can presently be written - one that challenges these various ideas and asks questions without necessarily being able to answer them. I don't think the society you see in the future, with equal perception of the sexes, will make this any easier or harder, it's just a different context in which to do it.
In short, female (and male) characters written today have to consider these gender stereotypes and views, even if they do not confirm to them.
::shrugs:: sure. But again, my previous statement was only qualifying the "strong woman" perception. I have no disagreement with anything you said, you're just going outside the boundaries of what I was previously addressing.
So the new question is, can these traits listed not also apply to women and thus make legitimate characters, or must some traditionally feminine behavior also be applied before a female character can be a "real woman" and not just a "man with boobs"?
I wasn't sure of the point you were getting at until this part.
The way I see it is that it's less about token feminine characteristics and more about believable ones. Women who predominately display behaviours we traditionally associate with men are the exception rather than the rule at this point, which I believe is what Kaltagesta was saying with his final line about gender roles being acknowledged without necessarily conforming to them.
This doesn't mean that you write a male character, give them boobs then show them nursing an infant or something trite like that, but I think that it's worth recognising that you don't write a male character the same way as a female one and vice versa.
DragonGirl you seem to be missing, or purposefully ignoring the words "average" and "stereotypical". There was a reason that way back, when society primarily revolved around hunting and gathering, that women were usually the gatherers and men then hunters. Patriarchal society didn't just instantiate out of nothing. It came from the fact that men are physically stronger than women.
This isn't always the case obviously. Women can be stronger than men, have been, and will continue to be, but there are scientific FACTS backing up that statement. Higher testosterone in men, means greater muscle growth, blah blah, etc. The point is, because of those fundamental differences our society has grown into the patriarchal one it is today. That's why these traits are still common in media. Not because of a new generation of sexism, but because of centuries of it.
That's why there are certain traits that are "on average" associated with each gender. You're acting overly defensive, like people are making this stuff up. No one is saying women don't possess those traits typically associated with men, they're saying, they're not typically associated with women
Thought of a character that I don't think has been mentioned; maybe the best character from one of the gen's most under-appreciated titles: Grace Holloway.
Also there are some serious Lady Issues in this thread. None of us have played the new Tomb Raider game yet(presumably), but there's every indication that the new Lara is going to infinitely preferable to that abomination of a character that she was before.
Being a 'strong' female character doesn't have anything to do with being invincible. It means being drawn with the same depth of strengths and flaws that we expect of the strongest male characters. It means being held to and measured by the same standards of behavior, intellect, compassion, dimension, We don't need to patronize or deify female characters anymore than we need to degrade them(though all those things have their occasional place in storytelling). The best characters are ambiguous, vulnerable, imperfect and multi-faceted, period.
So much truth here. From my perspective, strong women are extraordinarily desirable. Femininity, strength of character, physical capability, toughness and resolve are not mutually exclusive by any stretch of the imagination.
Emma Honeywell delivers on all of those traits and is not in any way unattractive. She fits the bill on all of those essential bits. A pretty good fit for the OP.
What do you mean? I think the word "Princess" as you see it in games is generally nonthreatening -- princesses are characters you rescue, most of the time, after all. Queen, though? That's a higher title, implying more responsibilities, and more likely to be threatening to the (sexist) male audience.
Crewnh said:
Yeah, TP Zelda is kind of awful. Actually most Zeldas are awful. Apart from maybe Tetra, but then she turned into a damsel in distress too. There's Spirit Tracks Zelda though, she actually does things in the game since she's playable and your "fairy companion", has an actual personality and character arc.
OoT Zelda and WW Tetra are my favorite Zelda, as far as strength and character go. You do need to rescue both of them at some point in their games, sure, I expect sexism from Nintendo, but both of them are reasonably strong characters most of the rest of the time, and do a lot on their own during the games.
As for TP Zelda though, as I said in my last post, she really disappointed me. Her character design is fantastic, and the backstory and basic plot sets up a scenario where she could have been a great character had they bothered to design her that way, but they went in essentially the exact opposite direction, emphasizing her weakness and unhappiness, and basically completely ruined her character. It's unfortunate, she probably has the best character design of any Zelda (of course though, I think TP has the series' best art design in general), and even has that sword, but doesn't live up to her design at all.
Oh, and yes, the ST Zelda is another one of the better ones. I really like that she actually helps out in a controllable manner, for the first time in a Nintendo Zelda game. PH, on the other hand, was a complete disgrace, with the worst, most pathetic Zelda since the the 8 and 16-bit games... ST was a nice improvement on that front, at least, even if gameplay-wise it wasn't too much better.
The Boat said:
Um...
she surrenders the kingdom to Zant, to save the people from being slaughtered, not to save herself. In order words she did the smart thing. I don't recall anything in particular showing that she or Midna are detached from the average citizen any more than a monarch usually is.
She also gives up her whole magic power which was protecting her from Twilight's Magic to save Midna, which led to her being possessed.
Read my previous post, I think I said what I think about most of this defense there.
I agree that Zelda did the smart thing when she surrendered, it's not the backstory part I have a problem with -- it's how she acts during the game itself. Or, more accurately, doesn't act.
I found it fairly ironic how Peach was sexualized about as badly in this game as in any of the Mario games where she gets kidnapped...
EricDiesel said:
It depresses me what some of you consider "non-sexualized". Not that there's anything wrong with sexy characters, but at least recognize them as such. They don't have to be Ivy or Bayonetta style caricatures to be meant to be seen as sexually desirable.
And I take objection to a lot of the Japanese game characters mentioned being considered strong. Japan is the worst offender in terms of making even "strong" women nearly useless in comparison to their male counterparts.
Japan is more sexist than Western nations, so it makes sense that their games are more sexist too, which, yes, I would agree that they are. Our games are too of course, but theirs are even worse.
charsace said:
I see nothing wrong with heels. When you are designing a woman for battle though it looks fucking stupid when they have on stilettos.
Yeah, the only people fighting in heels should be knights, on horseback, because that's what heels were invented for, fitting into stirrups.
Crunched said:
I would argue your stance is too strict. Alyx Vance has moments where she's sexualized, but she's not a sexualized character generally. She doesn't rely on others, is never presented as inherently vulnerable, and though she appreciates the player's help she is never totally dependent on him.
For the most part I agree that she isn't, but I can sort of see the point, in that she does follow you around, etc. Of course the companion is female" I guess is the idea for calling her sexualized. But yeah, overall she isn't really, probably.
Chell is even less so. The most sex appeal that's injected into her character is an undone jumpsuit, but doesn't it make sense that she'd appear that way?
These aren't characters with unrealistic proportions or skimpy outfits, who are morally or physically or psychologically weak. They aren't wearing dresses or skirts, they aren't reliant on a male superior and are often themselves initiators.
When I think "sexualized," I think of highlighted feminine qualities. Appearance can be a part of that (emphasized thighs, buttocks, breasts, tight-fitting or revealing clothes), but it's not necessary for sexualization. A female is sexualized when she's made dependent on a male counterpart, or is implied to be attracted to a strong, "wish-fulfillment" male (someone in a position of power, the hero), revealing her to be weak and in need of a "real man." Hopefully I'm explaining myself well enough. Even a three-dimensional character can be sexualized if her femininity is overemphasized, or if she's presented as somehow incomplete without being integrated with a male counter. Sometimes a child is used in place of a male (as in the case of Samus, who's been sexualized from Metroid 1 by being put into skin-tight outfits, and was cemented as a mother figure by the ending of Metroid 2).
Yeah, the way a character is portrayed is just as important as they way they look, or perhaps even more important. And that's why I have such a problem with Zelda in TP, it's about actions, not appearance.
DragonGirl said:
In reaction to what armor Lightning is wearing (and this extends to all characters) whether or not I take issue with female attire is associated with what the males are wearing too. If the women wear shorts in battle and the guys are bare chested with cute little vests, I don't really have a problem. Attire is individualized to the character with the main point being to look exotic and attractive, regardless of sex.
Where I would have a problem is if all the men were running around in plate mail while the women were stuck with chain mail bikinis.
In other words, I only have problems with clothes when female characters are dressed as eye candy while all the men are wearing "serious business" clothes. If everyone in a game were running around in speedos and bikinis well, that would be weird, but I'd roll with it.
I agree, when both genders have ridiculous costumes it's more defensible than when one are dressed normally, and the other very sexually. Unfortunately of course, that does regularly happen with female characters... but sure, sometimes it's even.
What do you mean? I think the word "Princess" as you see it in games is generally nonthreatening -- princesses are characters you rescue, most of the time, after all. Queen, though? That's a higher title, implying more responsibilities, and more likely to be threatening to the (sexist) male audience.
Except Princess isn't just a meaningless word, it's a TITLE. She's a princess. She's the daughter of the king. Whatever connotations you associate with the word are meaningless because as far as the game goes, it's only used to refer to her status in the royal family. You're acting like they're implications behind it. Link doesn't even have a title. He's just a farmer but obviously he's able to exceed expectations for what we typically expect of a farmer so i don't see why the same can't be applied to Zelda as a princess. Midna is a princess as well
...you're still missing the point I'm trying to steer you towards. Yes, I understand the "alpha male" stereotype. I'm trying to get at the specific traits associated with that stereotype. I don't know how to make that any clearer. Alpha male is not a behavioral trait. It's a lable applied to a bundle of traits. What are those traits?
I see your point perfectly clearly, I'm just deliberately not taking the bait. My point is that I do not agree that these stereotypical traits are inherently male or female, they are simply that, stereotypical. It's pretty clear in games like Gears of War what the creators consider to be masculine traits, and these traits are exaggerated to a ridiculous degree. They then take a female character, give her those exact same one-dimensional traits and add the element of "look at this STRONG woman who can HANG WITH THE BOYS". It just becomes pathetic.
Nope. I do have Muramasa and Odin Sphere sealed somewhere though. Still, can't believe how ridiculous she looks.
All the Last Remnant talk really makes me want to get back into it. I loved what little I played of it, from the FFXII like world to the characters. Emma was looking set to be a very good character. Fuck RRoD.
What do you mean? I think the word "Princess" as you see it in games is generally nonthreatening -- princesses are characters you rescue, most of the time, after all. Queen, though? That's a higher title, implying more responsibilities, and more likely to be threatening to the (sexist) male audience.
I see your point perfectly clearly, I'm just deliberately not taking the bait. My point is that I do not agree that these stereotypical traits are inherently male or female, they are simply that, stereotypical. It's pretty clear in games like Gears of War what the creators consider to be masculine traits, and these traits are exaggerated to a ridiculous degree. They then take a female character, give her those exact same one-dimensional traits and add the element of "look at this STRONG woman who can HANG WITH THE BOYS". It just becomes pathetic IN MY OPINION.
No, I'm saying that high heels in combat on foot is stupid. I was just saying that historically, it is true that modern high heels descend from riding boots. So like, Titania in FEoR actually does have defensible heels, but not many other female characters in high heels... and yes, of course the two kinds are quite different. Same origin, obviously very different functions now.
Zoramon089 said:
Except Princess isn't just a meaningless word, it's a TITLE. She's a princess. She's the daughter of the king. Whatever connotations you associate with the word are meaningless because as far as the game goes, it's only used to refer to her status in the royal family. You're acting like they're implications behind it. Link doesn't even have a title. He's just a farmer but obviously he's able to exceed expectations for what we typically expect of a farmer so i don't see why the same can't be applied to Zelda as a princess. Midna is a princess as well
No, I would say that in the context of games, it's not just a title. "Rescue the princess" is such an old videogame staple that I definitely think that there are certain expectations attached to the terms. Sure, sometimes games don't go that way, but it is frequently the case. And in the Zelda series in particular, it's always like that, every time. Princess Zelda is someone you (Link) rescues. Queen Zelda? If she exists at all, she'd only be mentioned at the end, as having risen to the throne after the end of the story, as in TP or the LttP Nintendo Power comic.
Also, part of my complaint is that Zelda was ruling the Kingdom of Hyrule, in that flashback, but for some reason hadn't been raised to Queen yet, and they don't explain why. A Prince or Princess don't rule a Kingdom, obviously. If her parents had been killed or something, she should have been raised to Queen already. The only exception would be if she's underage, but in that case a regent would be in charge, not Zelda, and that wasn't the case there. So, hence, she should already have been Queen when the game begins -- but, probably because of a "Zelda is supposed to be a Princess during the games" stereotype and some of the sexism I was mentioning, she isn't.
bhlaab said:
Let's post girls with body-hugging clothes standing with their hips cocked and pushing either their breasts or vaginas (or, magically, both) forward and then write underneath it "well technically shes a 3000 year old anime golem spirit so thats pretty not sexualized"
Okay, now we have a list, how do you justify it? Throughout history women have fought. In ancient viking culture, women and men fight alongside each other, particularly to defend the home front. Women were often kept out of fighting by cultural training but this says nothing about inclinations. Parental instincts? How often is this relevant in a video game scenario (especially in a way that's not forced)? Protectiveness? Do women not have a protective instinct towards the men in their lives? So the new question is, can these traits listed not also apply to women and thus make legitimate characters, or must some traditionally feminine behavior also be applied before a female character can be a "real woman" and not just a "man with boobs"?
Like I said, these aren't rules. But for every society like the Vikings, there are numerous others that weren't like that at all. Between societies in which only females fought, both fought, and only males fought, more are in the latter category than either of the other two. Does this make it a natural trait? I don't know, I'm not well schooled in that particular area of however-many overlapping sciences and psychologies one would need to be an expert in to even begin to answer it - but I think it does, at the very least, suggest that this certainly could be the case. And perhaps parental issues aren't often relevant to computer games but A. That doesn't mean it never will or that it should be off-bounds as a result and B. that's not really what you were asking anyway.
Re: the "man with boobs" thing, I was talking in a societal sense. The societies in which games inhabit do tend to have some idea of differences between sexes, whether that's a reasonable reflection of our society or not. So, to answer your other question, do female characters need feminine qualities to be a "real woman", the answer is a definite "no" but I think that, if a game (and we're talking nominally about games here, but this discussion is absolutely as relevant to every other form of storytelling - we just happen to be on GAF) does it, it should have a reason.
An example: I don't know if you're a fan or familiar with it, but I think The West Wing does an incredible job of having complex female characters. It's a show where almost every single character is, in some way, utterly brilliant and the best in their respective fields in many cases - a reflection of the setting I think; I'm not saying all 'strong women' (or men) need to be some sort of genius to be seen as strong, they just happen to be in the West Wing. How Sorkin went about characterising the characters is fascinating to me - you have a character like CJ, who is the press secretary. She's not considered particularly good looking (in fact, her unusually tall height is a reoccurring joke in the series). She commands a lot of respect in the other-wise mostly male workforce at the Whitehouse - but "retains" (and I begrudge using that word, for hopefully obvious reasons) her femininity. That is, she playfully flirts with the guys without ever making herself seem like an object. When a group of accapella singers come in at Christmas from Yale, she gets together with the other females in the office to coo about them. Compare this to another high-power female in the show, Nancy - she's the president's National Security Advisor (and is also a doctor and, to add an extra hint of 'in-an-unusual-position', also black) - she lacks almost all of those traits that I just attributed to 'femininity' and plays a lot rougher than CJ does with the other guys. She is what I would call a "guy with boobs" - BUT I like to think Sorkin did this intentionally, as a criticism (or perhaps not?) of the US military, suggesting that the only way a women can do well and progress within it is by forgoing that which is traditionally seen as feminine and embracing that which is seen as masculine. Or perhaps Nancy didn't "give up" anything, and this is how she is but that, nontheless, is still the reason she's risen to the massive heights she is, in an organisation that has, fairly or not, a reputation for sexism at its higher ranks.
I think both characters and interesting and equally "valid" and "real women" - in fact, here I certainly think that the writer's choice of what traits to apply more emphatically to one character over another adds an extra layer to the story that would be absent without out.
So, the short answer is that you can have characters to whom those traits can apply, to both men and women. You can have characters where this isn't the case, too, and they too can be interesting and complex.
What prompted me to say what I said though, re "men with boobs" was that you can a lot of computer games where you only get women like Nancy if they want a strong women. In The West Wing I think they had a really good application of it, but if all the women were like Nancy, it'd have made no sense and I think the story telling would have suffered as a result.
You're going a little too far with this. I was only qualifying the focus of this thread.
::shrugs:: sure. But again, my previous statement was only qualifying the "strong woman" perception. I have no disagreement with anything you said, you're just going outside the boundaries of what I was previously addressing.
I don't think I was. I think it's all relevant to understanding what can reasonably be considered a 'strong woman' and that it's not an objective thing. But OK.
True, he probably would be Sultan and not Prince. I guess that would partially depend on when the games are set, though. The PoP movie is set in pre-Islamic Persia, I believe, but the games are set in Islamic Persia, aren't they?
Andrex said:
Eh? I didn't think she was sexualized, just really badly stereotyped.
Black Falcon, I think the issue here is that you're thinking about TPs story WAY WAY too much. Zelda was a princess because she's always been a princess. They didn't mention the King and Queen because they never have. Even in Oot, the King WAS USELESS. Zelda/Shiek did the most to help Link, the King didn't do anything and the Queen wasn't mentioned. Was it sexism? No, it was them making a short story that wasn't supposed to incite deep thought into all the omitted details
As for TP Zelda though, as I said in my last post, she really disappointed me. Her character design is fantastic, and the backstory and basic plot sets up a scenario where she could have been a great character had they bothered to design her that way, but they went in essentially the exact opposite direction, emphasizing her weakness and unhappiness, and basically completely ruined her character. It's unfortunate, she probably has the best character design of any Zelda (of course though, I think TP has the series' best art design in general), and even has that sword, but doesn't live up to her design at all.
Read my previous post, I think I said what I think about most of this defense there.
I agree that Zelda did the smart thing when she surrendered, it's not the backstory part I have a problem with -- it's how she acts during the game itself. Or, more accurately, doesn't act.
I'm not gonna argue much with you there, because I think it's a taste thing, but Zelda
didn't escape, because if she did, Zant would destroy Hyrule/kill everyone"
. To me Zelda and Midna were portrayed as two sides of the same coin where
the ruler of the light was hostage to the twilight, powerless and broken, where the ruler of the twilight was banished to the light but still had the will to fight and kept all the sass we love
, so to that effect, I like the way Zelda was written in TP. But you know, tastes and all that.
True, he probably would be Sultan and not Prince. I guess that would partially depend on when the games are set, though. The PoP movie is set in pre-Islamic Persia, I believe, but the games are set in Islamic Persia, aren't they?
You know, I hadn't even thought about the chronology, but you're right it would depend. The term did exist pre-Islamic Persia, however according to Wikipedia it was more of an abstract concept of power rather than being a title.
ahh... I am the only one who liked Elsa Eliane, with her cute frence accent, from Front Mission, maybe I am just the only one who bought Front Mission 4.
It's a fantasy game, not a history game. As long as males and females wear equally improbable battle attire you can just chalk it up to the general setting of the game.
(not that I think that Lightning is a particularly great example of a strong female character)
To add to this.. I think a part of the premise of many FF and fantasy themed games, is that it is an analogue to what we would consider primitive society. Hence, these entire "worlds" are sparsely populated, and have big open "fields" etc. So, operating in that analogue, not everyone has access to a full suit of armor. And since FF games are usually about linear story and not "role playing" in a literal sense, the disposition of any given character (a peasant maiden etc) precludes them from ever acquiring a big ol'hunkin metal suit of armor---even when they're at "level" 99.
So I mean, I think that's part of context too. Hell, I think Xena is a good female character, and I liked her growing up, but she fights in a one piece leather swim suit. Of course Spartans fought wearing man skirts. So yeah, a lot of the "scantily clad" criticism is fundamentally flawed, and to that point "history" doesn't always reflect what we think of as common sense.
That said, Lighting and all the FFXIII characters look ridiculous because they're wearing like Japanese street fashion, which is absurd in and of itself. Also their world gives no context for their fashion. So yeah.
It is not as if they couldn't introduce him as the King from the beginning of the series.
The main reason they are prince and princess, is that you normally, and in the case of Zelda specially as something that is suitable for simple world of children, can't introduce romance/affection between them and their respective partners in the game, if they were kings and queens. It really is that simple.
One thing I've never understood is how Queens in fiction are so often these Elizabethan archetypes, but a Princess is generally weak and wishy-washy. So where the hell do all of these hard-ass Queens come from?
Not really, you could look at some older paintings, and beautiful women are actually somewhat overweight. Unless we have biologically changed.
One thing I've never understood is how Queens in fiction are so often these Elizabethan archetypes, but a Princess is generally weak and wishy-washy. So where the hell do all of these hard-ass Queens come from?
One thing I've never understood is how Queens in fiction are so often these Elizabethan archetypes, but a Princess is generally weak and wishy-washy. So where the hell do all of these hard-ass Queens come from?
I usually find it to be the opposite. In most fiction queens are seldom mentioned and it's always the "strong rebellious princess" that is pushed to the forefront
Black Falcon, I think the issue here is that you're thinking about TPs story WAY WAY too much. Zelda was a princess because she's always been a princess. They didn't mention the King and Queen because they never have. Even in Oot, the King WAS USELESS. Zelda/Shiek did the most to help Link, the King didn't do anything and the Queen wasn't mentioned. Was it sexism? No, it was them making a short story that wasn't supposed to incite deep thought into all the omitted details
No, the story may not matter in comparison to the gameplay, but it does matter. I mean, I agree that this stuff probably happened because Nintendo didn't care and wasn't thinking about it, but that doesn't excuse it, that just explains it.
OoT -- You're right, the King is useless. Some time between the past and the future parts Ganon killed the king, though, yes? So he couldn't have helped. As for the Queen, who knows if she was even alive when it began, but generally the children become the next leaders in a monarchy, not the monarch's spouse.
TP - Zelda is the one who makes the decision at the beginning to surrender, so she was in charge of the kingdom. This means that her father can't still be alive at the time of that flashback. There's no excuse or reason given for why she's still just a princess until the ending of the game.
Those two situations are definitely different.
The Boat said:
I'm not gonna argue much with you there, because I think it's a taste thing, but Zelda
didn't escape, because if she did, Zant would destroy Hyrule/kill everyone"
Is that actually true though, or was she just saying something like that in order to stay in that tower and keep berating herself for doing the right thing... I mean, yeah things are really bad, but as if they'd be better had you all been killed right there?
She should be doing something to try to fight back. She is the leader of Hyrule, she should be doing something! But she isn't, she's doing nothing except engaging in self-pity. Not much of a leader there...
To me Zelda and Midna were portrayed as two sides of the same coin where
the ruler of the light was hostage to the twilight, powerless and broken, where the ruler of the twilight was banished to the light but still had the will to fight and kept all the sass we love
, so to that effect, I like the way Zelda was written in TP. But you know, tastes and all that.
I thought that Zelda, Link, and Ganon were all pretty weak characters in TP, only Midna and, through most of the game, Zant really hold up... Link basically just follows around Midna and does as she says, Zelda's completely useless by the time the game begins, Ganon has minimal characterization compared, to, say, WW...
But anyway, yes, the idea clearly was for Zelda and Midna to pretty much be opposites. It sort of works, but Midna definitely comes out as the much better of the two characters, even if, as I said, she is reliant on Link. But yeah, overall I don't think TP's story is particularly good. It's certainly far from the worst Zelda storyline (there are many that are much worse), but it's not one of the best ones either, and after OoT and WW, that disappointed me. At least the gameplay was great. (I will say though, while right after it came out I thought TP's story was really disappointing, I did revise my opinion upwards once PH was released, because that reminded me what a REAL awful, entirely sexist Zelda storyline is like...)
That's because that slight "overweight" as you call it was the canon of beauty of that era. The current canon that deems those walking skeletons we have for models attractive is fairly recent.
How do you know the King wasn't imprisoned in TP? How do you know it wasn't the case that Zant imprisoned the King, thinking everyone else would simply bend to his demands but Zelda didn't, leading up to what happened in the game?
How do you know the King wasn't imprisoned in TP? How do you know it wasn't the case that Zant imprisoned the King, thinking everyone else would simply bend to his demands but Zelda didn't, leading up to what happened in the game?
I still believe it is much simpler than that, Zelda is a princess, just because a queen is a married woman, and so js PoP not a king.
It's pretty stupid to label the whole plot as sexist. In every Mario game you save Peach, one may very quickly label the whole series as sexist, but then in SMG you have Rosalina who is one of the best examples of not sexualized important female characters this generation.
There are many reasons beside sexism to explain Zelda's being Zelda.
DragonGirl you seem to be missing, or purposefully ignoring the words "average" and "stereotypical". There was a reason that way back, when society primarily revolved around hunting and gathering, that women were usually the gatherers and men then hunters. Patriarchal society didn't just instantiate out of nothing. It came from the fact that men are physically stronger than women.
This isn't always the case obviously. Women can be stronger than men, have been, and will continue to be, but there are scientific FACTS backing up that statement. Higher testosterone in men, means greater muscle growth, blah blah, etc. The point is, because of those fundamental differences our society has grown into the patriarchal one it is today. That's why these traits are still common in media. Not because of a new generation of sexism, but because of centuries of it.
That's why there are certain traits that are "on average" associated with each gender. You're acting overly defensive, like people are making this stuff up. No one is saying women don't possess those traits typically associated with men, they're saying, they're not typically associated with women
Whoa whoa no no no! I'm not defending anything nor am I ignoring history. I'm simply trying to lay out a thought exercise: what justification sits behind your views. I was just trying to invoke people to reflect on why they view things the way they do. Thus why I tried to phrase everything as a question. I haven't even expressed my own opinions at all in this conversation.
I see your point perfectly clearly, I'm just deliberately not taking the bait. My point is that I do not agree that these stereotypical traits are inherently male or female, they are simply that, stereotypical. It's pretty clear in games like Gears of War what the creators consider to be masculine traits, and these traits are exaggerated to a ridiculous degree. They then take a female character, give her those exact same one-dimensional traits and add the element of "look at this STRONG woman who can HANG WITH THE BOYS". It just becomes pathetic.
It wasn't meant to be bait. I was trying to bring the conversation to a deeper level. As for your specific example, okay, sure.
I was trying to speak in more general terms concerning what different people consider acceptable behaviors to assign to characters based on sex and why we think that way.
oR actually does have defensible heels, but not many other female characters in high heels... and yes, of course the two kinds are quite different. Same origin, obviously very different functions now.
