Interesting article about Sexism in Geek Communities

[Zeropoint]

I like my tauren female warrior. I originally went with the female tauren because I specifically wanted a holstein-patterned tauren and that coat wasn't available in male (not that you can see any of it now). Over time, the character design has grown on me and now I consider the tauren women to be quite attractive, and I enjoy seeing a depiction of an attractive woman who isn't a waif, and who dresses like her main fashion concerns are kicking ass and not getting hurt.

[Tasha]

Yeah, I had a real creepy one when I was leveling a Human something or the other. Some guy (I think he was a kid) kept following me around and making comments and "Trying to get together" or something. I was so creeped out, I deleted the character and rerolled a character with a different starting zone. One of my female friends would only play male avatars after getting slimed more than once playing a Female Avatar. Heck, I had to /gkick a guy for sexually harassing her blatantly.
 

I'm a bit bored with Blizzard in general. =)

 

As to that last bit, I've had some awkward/creepy moments while playing my female WoW characters, especially my Night Elf warrior for some reason, especially when most of the higher level plate defaulted to bikini plate for females back in Vanilla/BC days.

[Pattern Ghost]

Back when I was raiding, I mained my female human paladin. The reactions the first time I spoke in vent to my guilds was always priceless, as I have a deep, not very feminine voice.

[Cygnia]

Whereas, I got harassed in a PuG on voicechat once they realized the male pally healing their miserable keep standing in the bad stuff asses was a woman.

 

Hell, I remember when I rolled my lady gnome warlock -- and she kept getting harassed in the bloody starting zone.  This was a few years after WoW came out & was in between expansions.    

[Pattern Ghost]

WoW does tend to bring out the best in humanity.

[Markdoc]

Yup. In PoE I occasionally get friend requests from random players when playing a female alt, but have never ever, not even once gotten one when playing a male alt ... even though the playername is the same in both cases.

 

It's like a yin-yang circle made up of creepy and pathetic: hard to tell where one ends and the other starts.

 

Cheers, Mark

[Cancer]

As long-time members of this community know, that sort of stuff has gone on here, as well.

[薔薇語]

Re: TheDarkness post 1982.

I am glad you and I agree on the Pacman and Mrs. Pacman issue. 

I think your citing of the Batgirl and Supergirl examples are not as clear cut as you would want them to be. While I can not claim any particularly strong knowledge of the origins of those characters (I am not old enough to have witnessed their respective births nor interested enough in them to have invested time to memorize them), I can claim a stronger set of knowledge of the modern characters. And since we are talking about Modern Feminists discussing modern issues, having modern claims I think is only advisable, if not mandatory. 

So, lets look at Barbara Gordon - Batgirl (Pre-Killing Joke). Is she a less effective version of Batman? Well, only in so much as the Robins are less effective versions of Batman. And even less so than the first two Robins. We have a young woman who, of her own volition, decides to don a costume and fight for her city. She comes from a healthy family (or as healthy a Gotham family can be) with loving parents. That is fairly different from Batman. She is intelligent and independent - eschewing any desires to seek her father's approval or most any man or woman's approval. She is a capable fighter, too. While I can't in good conscious say she is as hyper-capable as Batman, I can't say in good conscious that ANY DC character is - even Superman! 

So if we are setting the gold standard as her needing to match up exactly with Batman, then we are asking too much, I think. But if we set it so that she parallels other male characters in her category (Bat-family members), she is just as capable and impactful as any of the Robins. Comparing apples to apples, I think the issue falls apart. Essentially what I am saying here is that when we look at the character critically and not through pre-conceived notions of narrative, we see a strong young woman who made an active and personal choice to become a hero. A woman who originally did show without the input of Batman and without the approval of her other male role model. It would be tough to say that she is somehow not a good role model for women everywhere; even if she doesn't punch as hard as Bruce. 

Following the Killing Joke events, she becomes an even stronger role model and diverges a lot from the original Batman knockoff. We get a character who is instrumental to the Bat-family, a woman who has overcome extreme anguish to be an even more effective warrior, someone who commands respect and someone who actively controls her own destiny. There are occasions she when directly disagrees with others (Gordon and Bruce specifically) and forges her own path that works out well for her. She, as much as Nightwing and perhaps more so, broke out of the Batman-sidekick role. That is a powerful role-model for anyone - girls most certainly included. So again, I find the narrative that diminishes Ms. Gordon just because she isn't punching in Superman's league, much less The Bat's (cause his is higher) to be missing the whole point. Such rhetoric is too self obsessed with its pre-established talking points to see what is in front of them. 

The Supergirl bits I know far less about (that is saying a lot since I don't know THAT much about Barbara, either). But I have seen Supergirl do incredible feats. And compared to her name-sake, Clark, she only lacks in one area: experience. But is that a bad thing? It lets us tell a fresh and new tale; a more relatable tale. And lets not forget that Supergirl is a character that has done things that even superman hasn't like removing a Red Lantern Ring from herself and surviving the ordeal. 

There is the follow up point that we can ignore all of my above points by driving home the idea that the above are "knockoff [characters] never intended to compete with the original." And it is here that I say we are trying to have our cake and eat it, too / that there exists no solution to the modern Feminist demand here. Why so? Well, we can look at every character who has in-universe 'clones'. This would be Batman with his Robins and Batgirl, etc. and Superman with the various other Kryptonians (Kara, Krypto, etc). These characters are not normally designed to "compete" with the original character. But is that because they are female or because they are not the original character? I think it is deeply flawed to assume the former and ignore the latter. None of the Robins were designed to compete with Batman. But we don't claim any level of issue with that. But the critique, if applied to the other male characters would mean that Tim Drake should have replaced the Batman or that if he was given a spinoff, it should have been designed to somehow "compete" with the original title. Sure we could cite the fact that a lot of these characters are given their own spinoffs that do "compete" with the original titles and that it is true for male and female characters, but that never seems to be enough. So, what is the demand? And how exactly is Batgirl not meeting them? 

In the case of Linkle specifically, we have a new and unique Female character. She is one of many female heroes (Impa, Sheik, Lana, Zelda, Ruto, Agitha, Midna, Fi). I believe all of them are fully playable with their own story arcs - I know for sure half of them are in the original title. So, she is joining a field full of unique and dynamic female heroes. But there is only one male hero in the original and three in the follow up assuming Toon Link and King Hyrule get an independent playable story arc. So, I repeat again that we have a game series that is not lacking for really positive female appearance - indeed, it is extremely weighted in favor of positive female roles. But that isn't enough? No, the sole positive male role must also be taken away? Is that not a bit extreme to ask of a game series that is positive and empowering? 

As to the exact role of Linkle, is she part of the Link Continuum (my words)? I don't know. Nor does the author of that page. We do not know the plot of the series yet. But assuming it runs like the original, there will be some baddy who is such a threat or does something extremely stupid and forces all these distinct characters from different timelines to be mashed together (Not all the Heroes are from the same game - despite being from the same franchise - and most games take place generations apart from each other). It could be that Linkle, Toon Link, and H.W. Link are all independent reincarnations of the Link Continuum. 

But lets assume she is not part of the Link Continuum and just an independent character: why is that a bad thing? We have a character who is unique, independent and, if done like the other female characters, fully capable. She will also be a character, who if done like the other female characters, will be playable and whose independent quests are needed to save the day and complete the game. Is she the title character? Well, no. But neither is Link ^^. 

All that said, could Link be a female character in the main franchise? Yeah. I have little issue with this. It would be different. But if we are simply doing it to be different are we actually achieving feminist goals? "The newest Link is exactly the same as all the old ones but sans the penis! Enjoy" is exactly just a reskinning of the character. It isn't empowering to just penis chop a character cuz rezonz. And your argument in all of post 1982 I think reflects that when we talk about how simply doing a gender swap isn't good enough - there needs to be something more. 

What is that something more? That something more is having a character who is independent of the title character. So independent that she stands on her own without referent because once there is referent there is naturally going to exist some stupid pissing contest. No, there can't be a referent. Thus the real ideal isn't that we reskin a character but create new ones; ones like Wonder Woman. Female leads who are leads because that is their normal and natural state. Ones who never have to worry about being less than "--man" because there is not comparison to draw. 

It is in this regard that I think Linkle falls apart. My real criticism of Linkle is that the character was created simply to appease a group of people who can't be appeased. And the real solution was simply to make an already existing female character a bigger part of the series. Zelda, for example. She is the Title character in the series for a reason. But of course when (counter) requests were made to just elevate Zelda, self described feminist railed against that too. There is no happy medium and there is no possible solution that doesn't breed more into this misguided attempt to put disempowered-woman-narrative ahead of the truth. 


Soar

[Pattern Ghost]

Overwatch is having a beta weekend this weekend. Started at 9am today, apparently. Guess it's one of those speak of the devil situations.

[薔薇語]

Overwatch has been in a 'Closed' Testing Beta for sometime. If you go to Twitch you can watch people play Overwatch a lot. Countless hours of professionals have been played. 

Soar. 

[Pattern Ghost]

Orrrr . . . you can download the open beta and play for yourself this weekend. Particularly as pertains to this thread, interested parties could play as each of the characters in question and observe their appearance, animations, emotes, voice acting, etc., and actually form an opinion from first hand experience.

[Markdoc]

Soar, that was a really long post simply to say "I just don't get it".

 

I don't think the argument is about trying  "to appease a group of people who can't be appeased". I've talked to some, you know, actual women, and their - almost universal - complaint is "Why are there so few characters actually designed with us in mind?" We're not talking about penis-chopping manhaters here, but ordinary gamers, who feel that they are being ignored at best, actively mocked at worst, by much of the gaming industry.

 

I think you make the point exquisitely when you put Batgirl and Robin in the box, because it really is a good comparison: neither of them are original stand-alone characters like Batman. Both of them are derivative, subsidary appendages of the actual character, and both are well-worn archetypes: female version and trusty sidekick, respectively. Batgirl, Female Thor, Supergirl, She-hulk ... etc are not characters designed with women or girls in mind. Like Linkle, they are simply a male hero with tits slapped on, or as you put it yourself, just a reskinning of the character.

 

So I'm not surprised that this approach didn't satisfy feminists (or indeed, women in general) because not only was it not what they were asking for, but it was in fact exactly one of the things they were criticizing.

 

You make this point very well in your post, though I'm pretty sure it wasn't the point you were hoping to make.

 

cheers, Mark

[TheDarkness]

Re: TheDarkness post 1982.

 

I am glad you and I agree on the Pacman and Mrs. Pacman issue. 

 

I think your citing of the Batgirl and Supergirl examples are not as clear cut as you would want them to be. While I can not claim any particularly strong knowledge of the origins of those characters (I am not old enough to have witnessed their respective births nor interested enough in them to have invested time to memorize them), I can claim a stronger set of knowledge of the modern characters. And since we are talking about Modern Feminists discussing modern issues, having modern claims I think is only advisable, if not mandatory. 

 

So, lets look at Barbara Gordon - Batgirl (Pre-Killing Joke). Is she a less effective version of Batman? Well, only in so much as the Robins are less effective versions of Batman. And even less so than the first two Robins. We have a young woman who, of her own volition, decides to don a costume and fight for her city. She comes from a healthy family (or as healthy a Gotham family can be) with loving parents. That is fairly different from Batman. She is intelligent and independent - eschewing any desires to seek her father's approval or most any man or woman's approval. She is a capable fighter, too. While I can't in good conscious say she is as hyper-capable as Batman, I can't say in good conscious that ANY DC character is - even Superman! 

 

So if we are setting the gold standard as her needing to match up exactly with Batman, then we are asking too much, I think. But if we set it so that she parallels other male characters in her category (Bat-family members), she is just as capable and impactful as any of the Robins. Comparing apples to apples, I think the issue falls apart. Essentially what I am saying here is that when we look at the character critically and not through pre-conceived notions of narrative, we see a strong young woman who made an active and personal choice to become a hero. A woman who originally did show without the input of Batman and without the approval of her other male role model. It would be tough to say that she is somehow not a good role model for women everywhere; even if she doesn't punch as hard as Bruce. 

 

Following the Killing Joke events, she becomes an even stronger role model and diverges a lot from the original Batman knockoff. We get a character who is instrumental to the Bat-family, a woman who has overcome extreme anguish to be an even more effective warrior, someone who commands respect and someone who actively controls her own destiny. There are occasions she when directly disagrees with others (Gordon and Bruce specifically) and forges her own path that works out well for her. She, as much as Nightwing and perhaps more so, broke out of the Batman-sidekick role. That is a powerful role-model for anyone - girls most certainly included. So again, I find the narrative that diminishes Ms. Gordon just because she isn't punching in Superman's league, much less The Bat's (cause his is higher) to be missing the whole point. Such rhetoric is too self obsessed with its pre-established talking points to see what is in front of them. 

 

The Supergirl bits I know far less about (that is saying a lot since I don't know THAT much about Barbara, either). But I have seen Supergirl do incredible feats. And compared to her name-sake, Clark, she only lacks in one area: experience. But is that a bad thing? It lets us tell a fresh and new tale; a more relatable tale. And lets not forget that Supergirl is a character that has done things that even superman hasn't like removing a Red Lantern Ring from herself and surviving the ordeal. 

 

There is the follow up point that we can ignore all of my above points by driving home the idea that the above are "knockoff [characters] never intended to compete with the original." And it is here that I say we are trying to have our cake and eat it, too / that there exists no solution to the modern Feminist demand here. Why so? Well, we can look at every character who has in-universe 'clones'. This would be Batman with his Robins and Batgirl, etc. and Superman with the various other Kryptonians (Kara, Krypto, etc). These characters are not normally designed to "compete" with the original character. But is that because they are female or because they are not the original character? I think it is deeply flawed to assume the former and ignore the latter. None of the Robins were designed to compete with Batman. But we don't claim any level of issue with that. But the critique, if applied to the other male characters would mean that Tim Drake should have replaced the Batman or that if he was given a spinoff, it should have been designed to somehow "compete" with the original title. Sure we could cite the fact that a lot of these characters are given their own spinoffs that do "compete" with the original titles and that it is true for male and female characters, but that never seems to be enough. So, what is the demand? And how exactly is Batgirl not meeting them? 

 

In the case of Linkle specifically, we have a new and unique Female character. She is one of many female heroes (Impa, Sheik, Lana, Zelda, Ruto, Agitha, Midna, Fi). I believe all of them are fully playable with their own story arcs - I know for sure half of them are in the original title. So, she is joining a field full of unique and dynamic female heroes. But there is only one male hero in the original and three in the follow up assuming Toon Link and King Hyrule get an independent playable story arc. So, I repeat again that we have a game series that is not lacking for really positive female appearance - indeed, it is extremely weighted in favor of positive female roles. But that isn't enough? No, the sole positive male role must also be taken away? Is that not a bit extreme to ask of a game series that is positive and empowering? 

 

As to the exact role of Linkle, is she part of the Link Continuum (my words)? I don't know. Nor does the author of that page. We do not know the plot of the series yet. But assuming it runs like the original, there will be some baddy who is such a threat or does something extremely stupid and forces all these distinct characters from different timelines to be mashed together (Not all the Heroes are from the same game - despite being from the same franchise - and most games take place generations apart from each other). It could be that Linkle, Toon Link, and H.W. Link are all independent reincarnations of the Link Continuum. 

 

But lets assume she is not part of the Link Continuum and just an independent character: why is that a bad thing? We have a character who is unique, independent and, if done like the other female characters, fully capable. She will also be a character, who if done like the other female characters, will be playable and whose independent quests are needed to save the day and complete the game. Is she the title character? Well, no. But neither is Link ^^. 

 

All that said, could Link be a female character in the main franchise? Yeah. I have little issue with this. It would be different. But if we are simply doing it to be different are we actually achieving feminist goals? "The newest Link is exactly the same as all the old ones but sans the penis! Enjoy" is exactly just a reskinning of the character. It isn't empowering to just penis chop a character cuz rezonz. And your argument in all of post 1982 I think reflects that when we talk about how simply doing a gender swap isn't good enough - there needs to be something more. 

 

What is that something more? That something more is having a character who is independent of the title character. So independent that she stands on her own without referent because once there is referent there is naturally going to exist some stupid pissing contest. No, there can't be a referent. Thus the real ideal isn't that we reskin a character but create new ones; ones like Wonder Woman. Female leads who are leads because that is their normal and natural state. Ones who never have to worry about being less than "--man" because there is not comparison to draw. 

 

It is in this regard that I think Linkle falls apart. My real criticism of Linkle is that the character was created simply to appease a group of people who can't be appeased. And the real solution was simply to make an already existing female character a bigger part of the series. Zelda, for example. She is the Title character in the series for a reason. But of course when (counter) requests were made to just elevate Zelda, self described feminist railed against that too. There is no happy medium and there is no possible solution that doesn't breed more into this misguided attempt to put disempowered-woman-narrative ahead of the truth. 

 

 

Soar

A few things.

 

The reason I used the examples of Batgirl and Supergirl before retconning(something I tried to make clear, but probably understated) was because they are more germane to the discussion. Linkie is not a unique character. Linkie is a Link knockoff. Aside from the weapon, nothing has changed, except that the character is not the main hero of any story, but a skin added to an already existing game ported to a game system.

 

Further stories involving later writers writing Batgirl and Supergirl dealt with changing markets and changing views. That Linkie more resembles the sort of attempt at this done when Wonder Woman was the Justice League's secretary(because, you know, there couldn't be a better use of someone who can get the truth out of anyone) suggests that this is a fair criticism of the Linkie character: the fact that it is decades behind similar media in how the attempt was done.

 

Now, I totally agree with certain aspects of what you are saying. As soon as we make 'Bat-Amerasian', the referent is always going to be the main thing.

 

Markdoc addressed the issue of derivative characters(not clones at all) far better than I could. The main difference I will cite is that, while you are correct, the derivative characters will not be able to compete, the original characters have other characters that, from early on, both in their parent company and outside, there would be heated argument whether they could beat them. Batman or Captain America, Captain America or Wolverine(before Wolverine became ridiculous), Hulk and Superman. If Batgirl can't beat Batman, we know she can't beat other characters that assume are on a par with Batman. In this manner, the female characters, for decades, were never the equal of the male characters in their same category, because as soon as Supergirl is seen as tougher than the Hulk, she is tougher than Superman. So the problem becomes, if you use derivative characterization to market to women, you place a clear ceiling on their effectiveness to prevent harming the main property, the character they are derived from*. Now, if later, they turn Linkie into something more, they will have to more and more differentiate her from Link.

 

However, on another related point, Link was never one person, so it is not 'penis chopping' if SOME incarnations are not male, it's true to the character as written, if not yet realized.

 

Yes, there are many female heroines. BUT, Link is the primary hero, the lead hero, the flagship of the brand, as it were. There are plenty of stories with many female supporting characters/heroes, and a male lead, and there are no shortage of those that are entirely sexist in tone. To use another example, there are plenty of stories of indigenous people saved by white heroes whose characters, at least the heroic ones, are mostly indigenous. There's also Tom Cruise saving the samurai. This has generally been rightly criticized for similar reasons. You can have plenty of heroic characters of one type in a story, and still end up making them window dressing for the lead character.

 

As for what Linkie is, the game designer, as quoted in that article, is quite clear, that this is a market test of whether a larger female role in the future will sell. And, I would say, if she is Link, there is really no reason not to just call her Link and show some daring.

 

Either backing a new female character that they were going to put in as the lead hero in a big game(not a ported game with the character added as a market test), or simply making Link incarnate as a woman, would have been better than making a knock off of Link.

 

Finally, the character was not, according to the sources as far as I'm aware, made to appease to anyone(the appease argument is, itself, a bit of a narrative, I would point out, not that it does not ever happen). It was made to test the market to see if a larger role for female characters was economically viable, using women who buy the games as a test market. Since, as you point out, there are already many female heroines in the story, the only thing they could be testing is a female main hero. Except they had no reason not to use Link. Other than fear of loss of revenue for making Link female. So they made a knock off. They may very well later turn Linkie into something more, but as it stands, Linkie is entirely a knockoff, derivative character used to make their own customers prove whether or not they will buy game if they make the lead hero a woman sometimes in their flagship games. If we are referring to what is modern, we can only discuss Linkie as she has been presented, not the Linkies that may yet be. And what we have is a woman in a Batman outfit in a non-flagship character role with a few small cosmetic differences from the main character, but totally wearing his clothes and bearing his name.

 

*A totally unrelated point, but the Supergirl/Superman thing always bugged me. The difference in mass between men and women has certain physical effects, but there is no reason to assume that, if your powers are derived from yellow suns, that your pecs have any bearing whatsoever on your strength. Supergirl should totally be on equal footing with Superman unless he's somehow getting more yellow sun. /rant

[TheDarkness]

Additionally, playing up the resurrections that are Link could open new opportunities. Doctor Who is a good example of a story that used multiple incarnations(regenerations) of the same character in the same story.

[薔薇語]

Re: Markdoc and TheDarkness.

Markdoc, it could certainly be that there is some point being made that I am not grasping, but of course I doubt that. At the end of the day, though, I think you are missing the heart of my post: the demands to reskin a character into a female version are not ever going to appease the crowd of individuals demanding such. Reskinning batman into a youngman (Robin) or Superman into a young girl (Supergirl) has a negative outcome. Creating a distinct character inside the establish continuity (Batgirl) also will never work. The only real option is to create a new property (Wonder Woman) but that doesn't answer the original demands to redo an establish male property as a female. Thus the demands are unachievable. 

TheDarkness, Linkle is most certainly an acquiescence to feminist demands to see a female link. Following the reveal of the upcoming Legend of Zelda property last year, they received a lot of mixed reviews followed by outcries for a female link because the possible title character (it is safe to say the displayed character was link) appeared to be more feminine but was still male. This sparked a large and vocal demand by feminist groups to see a female Link. Low and behold just a year later there is a female version of a Link-esce character: Linkle. And might I add once again, we do NOT know her storyline. We do not know if she is a reincarnation of Link or, if like Impa, just a completely distinct character. 

Assuming it is safe to say that Linkle will be treated like Zelda and Midna in the upcoming game, she will have a full and independent playable arch just like Link. While Link may deliver the final blow to Gannon (or whoever the enemy happens to be), Linkle will be a necessary, fun, and playable part of the story. 

And as is relevant to the discussion, the option to simply elevate Zelda to principle character status was nigh universally rejected by feminists at the time of the original controversy. This means the goal isn't to have a positive female character but to take away the sole positive male character and make it female. That isn't a desire to see equality but spite. 

Soar. 

[Markdoc]

As for what Linkie is, the game designer, as quoted in that article, is quite clear, that this is a market test of whether a larger female role in the future will sell. And, I would say, if she is Link, there is really no reason not to just call her Link and show some daring.

 

The sad thing is, as a fairly pathetic knockoff, it probably won't sell well. Having made a feeble attempt that almost certainly won't appeal to anyone, they will then say "See? Nobody wants games with female lead characters".

 

cheers, Mark

[NuSoardGraphite]

Putting a dress on a popular male character and calling that equivalent investment to the amount of work into making the male character compelling has a very poor history. There is 'has equivalent powers, and is thus equal' and 'the company has actually invested themselves to develop compelling female characters that hold the central role'.

 

Usually, the only time those characters become good is when people other than their 'creators'(the people who put a dress on Superman) take those lame characters with little investment into making them compelling, and actually invest in their development more than 'hey, she has all the same powers(usually just a little less)'.

 

Putting a dress onto a character and giving them weapons just like every other character in the series is not the same level of investment, which tends to be what feminists would like to see.

Time has to be given for the character to develop. The original Link has a very long and storied history behind him. If the concept of Linkle is popular enough, excpect the same to happen to her, but I wouldnt expect so much in her first outing where Nintendo is merely testing the waters to gauge fan reaction to the concept.

[薔薇語]

The sad thing is, as a fairly pathetic knockoff, it probably won't sell well. Having made a feeble attempt that almost certainly won't appeal to anyone, they will then say "See? Nobody wants games with female lead characters".

 

cheers, Mark

 

Hyrule Legends is a halfway established product that already has a ton of female leads in it. This isn't a product doomed to suffer because of the inclusion of Linkle anymore than it is destined to succeed because of her. Assuming the creative control groups are playing this as a testing ground, it is a stupid one to do as it will only prove a point if there is absolutely radical acceptance or denial of the character by the masses; this being a situation not likely to occur. 

 

Soar. 

[Markdoc]

Re: Markdoc and TheDarkness.

 

Markdoc, it could certainly be that there is some point being made that I am not grasping, but of course I doubt that. At the end of the day, though, I think you are missing the heart of my post: the demands to reskin a character into a female version are not ever going to appease the crowd of individuals demanding such. 

 

Oh, you're missing the point, all right. Nobody is actually demanding reskinning. So nobody is going to be appeased, because nobody is asking for that apart, maybe, from you.

 

What women, by and large are asking for is characters written either with them in mind, or at least not specifically aimed only at guys only. Catwoman, not Batgirl. A female character who can stand or fail on her own merits, not Link with tits. They are also asking for the same kinds of choices that guys already get. When playing Diablo III, as a guy, I had the choice of gender-match characters ranging from young, lithe guy to grizzled veteran warrior. As a female, my choices ranged from hot shapely babe with short hair to hot shapely babe with long hair.

 

Reskinning as a a lazy-ass excuse for not addressing these issues is a source of discontent, not a demand people want addressed. So of course they won't be pleased. Who on earth would expect them to be pleased when served up something they have repeatedly said they don't want?

 

cheers, Mark

[Sociotard]

Hmm, I don't know if I've heard anyone demanding this particular reskinning, but I have seen very positive reactions to a proposal to flip roles (Zelda is a hero who must save prince Link)

http://dresdencodak.com/2013/04/11/the-legend-of-zelda-clockwork-empire/

 

I also have seen proposals to reskin other characters.   for example to remake James Bond as Jane Bond

http://www.themarysue.com/dame-diana-rigg-lesbian-bond/

 

So I would say that some reskinning is positive, especially if it is done as its own story rather than as a side character in the original story (Thor as Woman is better than Batgirl). It at least allows women to be more present in the medium, which is important as the roster of top heroes is a little ossified. It's a lot easier to say that Captain America is Black now than it is to create a new black superhero and make him exceedingly popular.

 

It will never be possible to satisfy all the feminists.  The group is too diverse, wanting too many things in too many grades.  Even if all the superheroes were replaced with original concept lady superheroes, some feminists (Sarkeesian, I believe) don't want heroes who use violence at all.  So, accept that we won't ever be good enough because there is no good enough. But Reskinning can be good, and should not interfere with attempts to make original female heroes

[TheDarkness]

And, to be clear, Link IS NOT male, Link has been males. Link is not an "established male property", Link is a reincarnated spirit who so far, has been different males.

 

And I really think that you are basing your argument on its own narrative. Sales were lackluster AND feminists apparently said something. Your narrative is that the latter, not the former, is causative to the creation of Linkle, while the game's creator, based on his own words, seems to be trying to expand a market of buyers, which would suggest the former has some role. If we're going to examine your narrative, we must compare it to other narratives.

 

Additionally, I'm curious how much influence feminists have on a Japanese company and Japanese game designers. It's been some time since graduate school, but at that point, feminism had not had nearly the influence in Japan that it had in other places. Perhaps this has changed, as I said, it's been a while.

 

Lastly, one game with a preponderance of female supporting characters, that then gets a female lead, in an industry in which this is highly atypical, is not spite or an unfair situation, it is just a game that has mostly or entirely female characters. If the whole industry suddenly got rid of male lead characters, and switched to female supporting characters, this would perhaps fit your narrative, but that is not the case.

[Sociotard]

 

Anybody want to tell Target?

 

EDIT: and the issue has been resolved.  It was funny while it lasted.

[Pattern Ghost]

And Target was just in the news recently for getting rid of gender tags on their kids' clothing sections. (Never saw it happen, though, so not sure if they implemented that one.)

[bigbywolfe]

Target's focus on removing gender signage was for toys and children's bedding, not clothes.  As for the costume, it's probably the exact name the manufacturer put on it and was entered as such by some employee who didn't know better.

[Pattern Ghost]

Well, that makes more sense. I got the mangled version from the local radio pundits, thanks.