Interesting article about Sexism in Geek Communities

[Cygnia]

Nintendo still won't make Link a girl, but they'll put him in a dress and call him Linkle

 

Linkle is a classic example of the "Ms. Male Character" trope. Originating with Ms. Pac Man (another descendant of a classic Japanese title), the Ms. Male Character is a "female version of an already established or default male character. Ms. Male Characters are defined primarily by their relationship to their male counterparts via visual properties, narrative connection, or occasionally through promotional materials." It's a trope that describes how, in an attempt to appeal to the wallets of their female demographic, male game designers will often reduce women to a bow, a skirt, and/or lipstick. There is virtually no distinction between the original male character and the Ms. Male Character other than superficial, stereotypically gendered aesthetic changes.

 

In Linkle's reveal video, the announcer introduces her by saying she "looks quite familiar..." Except, you know, for the skirt and braids and tits. True to form, Linkle dual wields crossbows instead of wielding the usual master sword—ensuring that no one confuses her for being an actual, real, legitimate Hero of Time like Link. Her moves mimic things like Link's spin attack, only with the decidedly less awesome and physically improbable animation of her killing enemies by shoving her crossbow in their face multiple times without reloading once. I mean, jesus, even the name "Linkle" sounds like the linguistic version of putting a boy in a dress. It's clumsy, it's lazy, and it's exceedingly pandering.

[Hermit]

 

I have mixed feeling about this.  On one hand it is cool that they are reaching out to girls as a market, OTOH the quality doesn't look very good to me. 

Looks better than that Teen Titans Go to me, quality wise.

[Ranxerox]

Looks better than that Teen Titans Go to me, quality wise.

 

Well if that's where you want to set the bat ...

[薔薇語]

Nintendo still won't make Link a girl, but they'll put him in a dress and call him Linkle

 

First and foremost, I am replying to the section you quoted. I have not bothered to read the rest of the article given the low quality of this one. If there exists some particularly good bit of information in the other parts, feel free to let me know.

 

Anita Sarkeesian might point out, Linkle is a classic example of the "Ms. Male Character" trope. Originating with Ms. Pac Man (another descendant of a classic Japanese title), the Ms. Male Character is a "female version of an already established or default male character. Ms. Male Characters are defined primarily by their relationship to their male counterparts via visual properties, narrative connection, or occasionally through promotional materials." It's a trope that describes how, in an attempt to appeal to the wallets of their female demographic, male game designers will often reduce women to a bow, a skirt, and/or lipstick. There is virtually no distinction between the original male character and the Ms. Male Character other than superficial, stereotypically gendered aesthetic changes.

 

Here is one issue I have with modern feminism: they can't seem to settle on a narrative. I think a lot of self described feminists would hold to the idea that woman and men are largely and inherently the same. Most of what distinguishes us is purely cosmetic. So, had "Ms. Pacman" been made by a self described Feminist, the narrative around it would use all the same language above but twisted to be positive. Yes, Ms. Pacman operates exactly the same as Pacman. Why? Because she damn well should! Ain't nothing stopping her from being a badass point collecting, fruit eating, ghost killing yellow beast like her male counterpart. And other than cultural norms about dress, she is the same. Thank god for someone finally acknowledging the equality of the genders.

 

But that narrative is not helpful for modern feminists and is thusly ignored in place of feeding into preconceived and narrative driven biases.

 

 

In Linkle's reveal video, the announcer introduces her by saying she "looks quite familiar..." Except, you know, for the skirt and braids and tits. True to form, Linkle dual wields crossbows instead of wielding the usual master sword—ensuring that no one confuses her for being an actual, real, legitimate Hero like Link. Her moves mimic things like Link's spin attack, only with the decidedly less awesome and physically improbable animation of her killing enemies by shoving her crossbow in their face multiple times without reloading once. I mean, jesus, even the name "Linkle" sounds like the linguistic version of putting a boy in a dress. It's clumsy, it's lazy, and it's exceedingly pandering.

It is this section, however, that I think is the biggest offender of my senses. It is uniformed at best. The author either has managed to play through the Legend of Zelda series without learning a damn thing or, and is more likely, never bothered to play the series.

 

First, she does look quite familiar. That is because she is a female version of Link that was created specifically to satisfy feminist demands for a female link. Seriously, people are upset that their demands were met?***

 

"Tits"? I don't think the author even bothered to watch the video or look at any of the art for Linkle. If there is one thing Nintendo does do, it is avoid adding tits to characters. Especially young females (Link is in his early teens - I assume Linkle is too). The author can add blind as well to the list of descriptors for this reviewer.

 

The author has a problem with a non-link character not wielding the Master Sword? You know, like every single non-Link character in the game? Zelda, Migna, the King of Hyrule, Majora, etc. have their own distinct weapons. Why should Linkle be different?

 

"Legitimate Hero" line was also stupid. While Link is the principle character for the franchise, he is hardly the sole "legitimate Hero" in the stories. Migna, Zelda, Impa, and many more character are crucial to the stories. And might I add that Link is essentially the ONLY male hero in the series (until Skyward Sword where we also got a buffoon of a male character who also did some good). The series is chalked full of distinct female characters - Heroes, villains, fiercely independent to those who need constant help. This is hardly a franchise that lacks for positive female roles. It is one that seems to push a "men are bad, mmmkay" line, though. Essentially every main and semi-main villain is male. Yet you don't hear much complaint about this odd male stereotyping that happens.

 

 

The author is complaining about the physical impossiblity of Linkle's attack? Really? So the author really didn't even bother to look at the attacks launched by the other characters - those decidedly unpractical to impossible attacks... God that is a stupid complaint.

 

Lastly, the author is complaining that "linkle" doesn't sound original enough? So how much Japanese does the author speak? I am going to go out on a limb and say zero, zilch, and nada. So excuse me if I think their dismissive attitude on this should be met with an equally dismissive response.

 

All in all, the Author is complaining because feminist demands were met. This is not a piece worth taking seriously in my not so humble opinion.

 

 

Moving on from that, the entire idea of making Link female never made sense to me. This isn't a franchise that lacks strong and positive female roles in it. The titular character, Zelda, is as important, if not more important than the role of Link for most of the franchise. She is the reborn goddess that creates everything. She is the uber mage that seals away evils and that Link relies on heavily to survive. And it isn't like the big baddy is out trying to kill Link to achieve his goals. Indeed, link could literally be almost anyone but Zelda, Zelda is special. Zelda is unique. Link is just an afterthought to the plans of the big boss for most of the franchise. Moving beyond that, the female leads of the Zelda franchise are playable characters in other games and are equally great: Smash Brothers and this new Hyrule Warriors being the two main examples of that. So it isn't like these are characters left to languish. Yet somehow taking away principally the ONLY positive male role model in the series and replacing it with a female strikes feminists as somehow "fair"? Give me a break. It is pure BS from start to finish.

 

Soar.

 

 

Edit: ANd for those curious where Linle's attire comes from, it is highly reminicent of the original Link attire "skirt" and all:

 

 

*** And incase anyone is curious, the artwork for Linkle also displays her having a sword. Is it the master sword? I doubt that but it is a sword. She simply does not display it in the game. But the original and official artwork for her in the manual shows it off. The following is, I assume, a fan created version that is almost exactly the same as the official art you can easily see on display. 

 

[TheDarkness]

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.

[薔薇語]

Before delving into this let me state that I am going to be approaching two separate points. The first is to respond to a legitimate criticism you have about my criticism. It is a fair point and deserves its own response. Flowing from that I want to get back to my original point which I don't think was captured in your post but I think will make more sense after clearing up your first point.

 

 

"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'."

 

<snip>

 

"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."

 

 

This is a good point. There is a difference between creating an independent female character and re-skinning a male character... sometimes. And it is that qualification that is the crux of the matter here. What in-depth story points, character arcs, etc. is Ms. Pacman missing that Pacman has? Unless I have manage to go 30 years without ever becoming aware of some well known and elaborate mythos about Pacman, I feel it is safe to say he has none. And certainly nothing that was more painstaking than "He likes dots. He likes Fruits. He likes blue Ghosts. Other Ghosts are scary and kill him." So by simply reskinning him and adding a bow, Ms. Pacman has garnered the same amount of backstory and character development as her male counterpart.

 

But if that was enough for modern feminists we wouldn't have to hear about the Ms. Pacman problem. No. Despite claims to the contrary, there is a vocal group who wants both a reskin but also MORE than the original character. At some point when does it become fair to claim that they aren't actually consistent? At what point do we have to sit down and say "No, what you want is a new character for a new game that isn't really the same as the previous one"?

 

This goes exactly the same for Linkle. While there is a lot of mythos around the character of "the hero" who happens to be "Link", there isn't much character development for the kid. Indeed, he was designed to be a largely blank-slate character from the start. That way everyone playing the game could impose upon the character their own views. Is he kind and virtuous? Is he a bit of a sociopath who likes violence? Does he prefer tea or coffee? While the former are a bit more instructive than the latter, we have about the same amount of information about both. It wasn't until the much later games that we started to get some more glimpses into Link's personality and his personal journey. Even then it is limited. And it is so precisely because the creators wanted Link to be a rather blank slate. The "Hero" of Hyrule could have been anyone. Even more reason why you have always been allowed to change Link's name. It could even be you!

 

But when we look at the female characters we see there is a bit of a different story. They tend (especially in the latter games) to be more set. Personality and motives are more on display. Character arcs actually occur. We have seen a variety of Zelda's come into being and display what kind of person they are in a way that Link never has. We have seen the character arcs for the principle badguys put onto display (to a lesser degree). Indeed, when it comes to lush character development, being Link is a bad idea.

 

So, when there is a complaint about a reskin of Link to Linkle that references "backstory" or any other such issues, I can't help but laugh. It is coming from people who vastly over-estimate what the male character has going for him. Partly because of the success of the design - his personality and backstory is YOUR personality and backstory. Thus it is as lush as you want it to be. How is Linkle lacking compared to Link?

 

Actually, lets address a very salient point right here: absolutely no one who is complaining knows the background and personality of Linkle - not unless they somehow happened to have worked on the project. But given that the Hyrule Warriors game introduces a new plot that explains the personality and motivations of all these time and dimension displaced characters, I fully expect Linkle to have her own story. And for that story to depict a personality - and likely do it in a way equal to or better than Link's own.

 

---

 

Moving onto my next point which was my original point when discussing the Ms. Pacman issue: Modern Feminism seems to be heavily driven by narrative more than anything else. The original example I gave of the Ms. Pacman dichotomy being a prime one. Using the same "facts" that there existed a Pacman and then Ms. Pacman with the stated 'story' and abilities, we can arrive at two wildly different interpretations. The only deciding factor is what biases we brought in beforehand. Do I want to see this as empowering or disempowering? And if that is all that it takes to define one's take, then there is no point to having any facts - You aren't actually hinging yourself or your argument to them.

 

Narrative driven critiques are not subject to Falsifiablity. I can't tell you empirically or otherwise that Ms. Pacman is empowering to women or disempowering. And subsequently, neither can any feminist who would claim otherwise.

 

Having a movement that is, in the case of this topic of video games media, so stringtly disconnected from logical progression in argumentation leads me to not give a damn. And the rather strong levels of attacks those in that movement give based on their self imposed narrative leads me to tune out even more. Hence why I read that quoted text and the quoted text alone in the original post. Why waste my time on more narrative based twistings of reason?

 

---

 

Lastly, I find it hard to reconcile the desire to see the same character gender-swapped while complaining that the character was gender swapped. The plea to see a new character (New story arc with new and unique abilities) while demanding the old (Why doesn't Linkle have the master sword!!!). There exists no achievable medium that wouldn't rendered the character unrecognizable.

 

Soar.

[TheDarkness]

On the Ms. Pacman thing, I agree, though I think that's more a case of picking a bad example. If they just went with Supergirl or Batgirl as the example, they'd be on the money: a character who is originally written as a less effective female version of the original(all retcons aside). Pacman and Ms. Pacman are not good examples. I question the sanity of anyone who sees themselves in dot eating spheroids beset by ghosts.

 

As for the Link/Linkie thing, the article begins by pointing out that Link is a spirit reincarnated into different heroes. All of whom have been male. Linkie is not a female Link, but a copy. The article then goes on to point out that the game she is being released in is "a ported 3DS version of a spin-off game of the original Zelda series." When they could simply make the next Link female.

 

The article then quotes the creator discussing this as a test of whether the main game might be able to support a female protagonist by way of seeing if women will buy it(assuming they don't already own the game it is ported from). I understand that they must make money off of their products, but the problem with this logic is that it assumes that, if there aren't enough, then the main game cannot support a female Link(being a reincarnated spirit and all), not because the women who do buy games won't buy it, this seems fairly unlikely, but because men won't, which may or may not be true, but if so, goes beyond narrative into actually a measure of the gaming market and attitudes. When the men making the games take seriously that the narrative is correct, they may very well be right, though I hope they are wrong.

 

The article actually does state that Link is a blank slate for the player. But it is not immaterial that it is a male blank state.

 

I think when the article discusses wanting a real female 'Hero', the capitalization is on purpose. There are other heroes, both male and female in the game, but Link is The Hero. And is a reincarnated being. While Linkie is not a female Link, but a knockoff, without question. I really don't think this is a case of feminists getting what they asked for at all, this, in every way, appears to be a Batgirl, when The Hero is actually a disembodied spirit that apparently can be placed into any worthy hero, and so the whole knockoff is not necessary to make a female Link, The Link spirit can simply be put in a female hero.

 

They are criticizing using a knockoff when they could make the actual character female or male any time they wanted. I think it is a fair criticism. Generally, the Batgirls are not a case of a gender swap, but a knockoff never intended to compete with the original. There's a real history of this with comic books and video games(and movies, and TV shows). By seeming to do exactly that, the game's designers(or more exactly, the add on to an already existing game's designers) open themselves to fair criticism.

 

So, the main point is that Linkie is a knock-off that exists solely to market test, using women as a target group, of a character that could be any gender. The test market bit is off of the game designer's own statement.

[Zeropoint]

I'd play a game with a female Link working to save Prince Zelda . . . I wouldn't mind a female Link and a Princess Zelda either, but that would be for other than dramatic reasons.

 

Regarding the whole "Ms. Character" phenomenon and why it's bad, it seems to me that it's because it treats "being female" as being in this weird space where it's simultaneously considered a noticeable difference but also only cosmetic. We get "Regular Batman" and then, for example, "Steampunk Batman", "Medieval Batman", "Future Batman", and . . . "Female Batman". I can see why women would be upset about having their gender applied as a gimmick. How would we men feel if, instead of having Ant-Man, we had "Mr. Wasp"? "He's just like the Wasp, except he's MALE . . . and can't fly." Would we Caucasians find it appropriate if a new comic character was explicitly positioned as "the white Luke Cage"?

 

(Okay, I have to admit that those examples don't really hit home, because "male" and "white" are positions of relative privilege, so those of us in those categories don't really feel the pinch of prejudice like minorities do.)

 

On another topic, does anyone else find the character designs for Blizzards new game "Overwatch" to be a little problematic?

[Pattern Ghost]

Problematic in what way?

 

Here they are:

 

Link. (Pic was too HUGE.)

[Tasha]

Problematic in what way?

 

Here they are:

 

Link. (Pic was too HUGE.)

Very stereotypical, all impossibly skinny women with huge breasts. All models designed for "male gaze" and not really for women players. Compared to the guys that are represented in every body type including one who is a bit obese.

 

[Ranxerox]

In response to just these sorts of criticisms they added Zarya.

 

 

So being vocal can help.  Now if they just added a couple more not overtly sexualized* female characters to the line-up the game wouldn't be embarrassing to play.

 

 

 

 

* - Disclaimer: I find Zarya totally bloody hot whereas the original female cast I just found meh, so maybe she is just differently sexualized.

Edited November 19, 2015 by Ranxerox

[Pattern Ghost]

Very stereotypical, all impossibly skinny women with huge breasts. All models designed for "male gaze" and not really for women players. Compared to the guys that are represented in every body type including one who is a bit obese.

 

 

Not seeing the "all impossibly skinny women with huge breasts" part. Some of those guys could go on a diet though.

 

Edit: As for the "and not really for women players" . . . what part of the models wouldn't appeal to women players? Have there been any studies on women's preferences for character designs? I think it'd be interesting to put this assertion to the test with a game that gives a full gamut of body types for all characters (expensive to produce) and then takes a survey of male and female preferences. I don't think that's been done.

 

Now, my personal experience certainly can't be taken as conclusive evidence, but at least in MMOs, I've noticed most female players electing to play the more attractive female models, whether that's not opting to play a female of one of the chubbier or unattractive races in WoW or not making unattractive characters in a game like CO with a high degree of customization. CO certainly has the tools to make unattractive female characters with un-sexy body types, but I haven't seen female players there taking advantage of it.

[Pattern Ghost]

So being vocal can help.  Now if they just added a couple more not overtly sexualized female characters to the line-up the game wouldn't be embarrassing to play.

 

Who's overtly sexualized? Body shape makes someone sexualized? I don't think so. The clothes? 3/5 in the pic I linked are fully covered. One of those is wearing armor that doesn't have "boob socks" or show her figure well. One is showing some cleavage, and one a little bit of thigh. Animations? The one with the boob window seems to vamp it up, but from what we've seen so far, each has their own personality, but I haven't (and I may have missed something, granted) seen anything overtly sexual in the trailers. And,of course, they added the tanky-looking girl in the pic posted above.

 

I think the only thing Blizz is guilty of here is lack of imagination, as most of the designs are simply clichés.

[Pattern Ghost]

I am going to back up a bit and say that the concept artist seems to have fetish for big butts to rival Sir-Mix-A-Lot's, so that might be considered overt sexualization. Or just weird.

[Zeropoint]

 

Problematic in what way?

 

Designed for the male gaze, as Tasha said. Now, none of the female character designs are a problem considered individually. Considered collectively and compared with the male characters, we see that once again, Blizzard has fallen into the rut of depicting male characters as something for the male players to fantasize about being, and the female characters as something for the male players to fantasize about having.

 

Zarya is a great addition to the team--I like the fact that they've created a female character design that celebrates and shows off the character's strength--this woman is valuable because she's strong and powerful, not because she's nice to look at (although she is that, too, which is another good point in her design--"attractive" comes in many flavors).

 

If the female character designs had been, say, Zarya (heavy weapons), Tracer (the speedster in the bomber jacket with the arc reactor glowy thing), and Pharah (blue power armor), then I don't think I would have seen a problem (although Pharah's armor has an improbably narrow waist).

 

A selection like that could have been rounded out by including, for instance, someone like a veteran SWAT trooper or infantry soldier with some age lines and a touch of gray, wearing tactical gear that didn't show any skin below her neck and body armor that made it hard to tell she had boobs at all--a design that says "this person is dangerous because she's spent a long time in a dangerous profession."

 

I'm not going to accuse anyone at Blizzard of being deliberately sexist, but sexism has been a pervasive part of our culture for so long that it's easy to "default" to being sexist even when we think we're being even-handed.

 

 

[Zeropoint]

I missed a few posts while I was composing my last one.

 

 

I think the only thing Blizz is guilty of here is lack of imagination, as most of the designs are simply clichés.

 

That's a big part of it--I would argue that the cliches they're following have been informed by sexist attitudes.

 

 

Disclaimer: I find Zarya totally bloody hot

 

Not gonna lie, part of the reason I like her design is seeing a different flavor of sexy. The only thing I don't find hot about her is my fear that a woman with a physique like that wouldn't be interested in a flabby nerd like me.

 

 

Who's overtly sexualized? Body shape makes someone sexualized? I don't think so

 

Not really, but when all the women have the same pinup girl body, it starts to look a bit odd.

 

 

The clothes?

 

Yeah, the fact that 4/5 of the original women are dressed in skin-tight, curve-hugging outfits that are designed more to show off their bodies than to look practical (and even Pharah's power armor leaves NO doubt about the sex of the person wearing it). This kind of costuming design makes it look like the designers think that a woman's first priority on the battlefield should be looking sexy for the men watching them.

[Pattern Ghost]

Quotes from Zeropoint (doing them manually, since the quoting function is a little bonkers):

 

 

Not really, but when all the women have the same pinup girl body, it starts to look a bit odd.

 

See, I don't consider those pinup girl bodies. So, my not seeing it may largely be a matter of perception.

 

 

(and even Pharah's power armor leaves NO doubt about the sex of the person wearing it)

 

I don't really see that as a problem. I'd allow artistic license on that one.

 

 

 

. . . and the female characters as something for the male players to fantasize about having.

 

Where's the evidence that female players don't want to fantasize about being hot athletic killing machines? I know plenty of female gamers who do. Heck, my sister-in-law changed classes after capping a GW2 character because that class's cosmetic armor options weren't sexy enough. And she's far, far, far from a casual gamer. (I'd add more "fars," but I don't want to get too obnoxious. She's that good, and that serious.)

 

That said, I do agree that more options for body types is a good thing. However, I also know that the vast majority of features that people scream for in games are ignored by the vast majority of the population of the game's players after they're put in. Is that the case here? I don't have any idea. I suspect that the character design choices aren't data-driven or research-driven. I think the best place to capture that kind of data wouldn't be a FPS, as the characters tend to be played based on their power, and very little else.

 

 

 

. . . someone like a veteran SWAT trooper . . .

 

That would be awesome.

 

 

 

If the female character designs had been, say, Zarya (heavy weapons), Tracer (the speedster in the bomber jacket with the arc reactor glowy thing), and Pharah (blue power armor), then I don't think I would have seen a problem (although Pharah's armor has an improbably narrow waist).

 

So, they've created three  two* of the five initial female characters in a way you don't find offensive? The angelic medic and the sultry assassin (sorry, I don't know the names of these characters) just kill the whole thing for you? What if there are females that want to play the pretty girl with wings or the sexy assassin out there? Should they be left out because of your preferences? If you toss in the  tank character, then 4/6 3/6 characters are at least "OK," but that percentage taints the game? I don't follow this logic.

 

*Edit: Zarya's not an original character. Probably blows my whole point, but I'll just let my bad math stand. Maybe a 50% batting average does kill it for ya. I can see that.

 

I'm not saying that the designs aren't sexist at all, but I don't see the problem here as one of overtly-sexualized characters spoiling the game for anyone. It looks to me like a step forward compared to past character designs. Even if you just consider it a baby step,  at least it's a step.

 

Of course, I could be completely wrong in all of this. So, I asked a second opinion from my wife. I showed her the pic I linked above and asked her if she saw anything wrong with the female characters. She didn't. Then I asked her if she thought they were overly sexualized. She said no. My wife's a lot more conservative about this kind of thing than I am. (I could put like fifty "lots" in there and be understating the point.) So, I dunno. I'll give that it may be a bit of a problem, but it's not chainmail bikini level.
 

[Zeropoint]

I wouldn't say that the female character designs "kill it for me". (The reason I'm not getting the game is that I don't like that genre of shooter, not because of anything to do with the character designs.) My initial reaction to the female characters was to appreciate their sex appeal, even--especially the one showing some thigh, Symmetra. It's just that after having someone point it out, I can take a step back and agree that yeah, the designs ARE a bit sexist, when they didn't have to be.

 

 

So, they've created three  two* of the five initial female characters in a way you don't find offensive? The angelic medic and the sultry assassin (sorry, I don't know the names of these characters) just kill the whole thing for you?

 

I don't find any of the female character designs offensive individually, in much the same way that there's absolutely no problem with any individual game having a muscular 30-something white male with a crew cut for a protagonist. When you start seeing the same thing over and over and over again, though, then it looks lazy and unoriginal at best.

[Pattern Ghost]

"Kill it for you" was probably a poor choice of words. I don't plan on getting it either. I used to like first person shooters, but I'm a bit too lazy about gaming these days to learn a new one properly. (And I was never a great FPS player to start with.)

[Cancer]

I don't play FPS's at all, and I haven't bought a computer game in ... a decade or more, so I am not really part of the target population for this subject. But I noted some time ago that RP games in general have a real dearth of non-sexualized female images, with the exception of the splinter stereotype that I might call the "shriveled old crone".

 

Seven or eight years back or so I went looking on-line for an image of a female, preferably staff-wielding, spellcaster type to paste into a character sheet for a tabletop high fantasy campaign. The character is something of a prude (and yes, I based her personality and outlook from a RL person I knew long ago), so I was looking for a dark-haired woman wearing a modest robe. "Modest" here is in the sense of keep-all-of-herself-covered; she's perfectly OK with wearing fine, expensive, or extravagant clothing!

 

Anyway, I couldn't find an image like that in my half hour or so of search. Everything out there had (at best) open deep cleavage, or slits up the side to the hip joint, or similar stupidity, and generally in the same overdone sex-kitten postures other people have pointed out is the doom of women comic book characters. I ended up settling for an image of what I think was intended to be an Elf, robed, "magic" coming off the hand, slightly built, no facial hair, long flowing head-crown hair, almost certainly thought of as male by the artist but androgynous enough that when reduced to 1.5-by-1.5-inch and pasted onto the character sheet, it made a plausible skinny young woman magic-user. Which was close enough to what I wanted.

 

I was disgusted. And I admit that it took that experience to make me realize that yes, this problem is far deeper and more pervasive than anyone on the Y side of the Great Divide cares to recognize.

[Pattern Ghost]

Here ya go, 8th image result for "female mage with staff," not too much skin showing on this one:

 

 

"Modest female mage with staff" gets a better selection, though there are still a coiuple of cheesecake shots in the mix:

 

https://www.google.com/search?q=female+mage+with+staff&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIjrGBupedyQIVCPBjCh3L0gTF&biw=960&bih=461#tbm=isch&q=modest+female+mage+with+staff

[Cancer]

Yeah, that's close to perfect. But I sure didn't find that back in '07-'08.

[Tasha]

I am not "offended" by the choices of characters in Overwatch, I am just bored with them. Like I have undoubtedly said in this and other threads. I am not against Sexy women, I just want a variety of character models to choose from. I don't just want the huge breasted, tiny waisted, waif. I also want tall muscular women. Women who carry around some weight in the middle etc. I look at the overwatch poster earlier in the thread and I see that diversity in body types for the guys, but all but one of the 5 women have virtually the same body. All wearing spandex, nothing bulky or non formfitting. It's just tiring that that's my only choice.

 

In Wow, My main is a Gnome Death Knight. My oldest and what used to be my main is a Dwarven Woman Hunter.
Horde side, I really love my Orc Woman Shaman. I love her attitude! It's like she's perpetually angry at everything! I enjoy my Tauren Woman and my Goblin Woman.

Yes there are times that I play the conventionally attractive characters, but the worst experiences I have had playing came when playing such characters.

[Pattern Ghost]

Yeah, that's close to perfect. But I sure didn't find that back in '07-'08.

 

Yeah, there's a lot more stuff on the web these days. I wasn't countering your point that the default is slit-legged, low cut outfits for female mages, just digging up some pics for ya.

[Pattern Ghost]

I am not "offended" by the choices of characters in Overwatch, I am just bored with them. Like I have undoubtedly said in this and other threads. I am not against Sexy women, I just want a variety of character models to choose from. I don't just want the huge breasted, tiny waisted, waif. I also want tall muscular women. Women who carry around some weight in the middle etc. I look at the overwatch poster earlier in the thread and I see that diversity in body types for the guys, but all but one of the 5 women have virtually the same body. All wearing spandex, nothing bulky or non formfitting. It's just tiring that that's my only choice.

 

In Wow, My main is a Gnome Death Knight. My oldest and what used to be my main is a Dwarven Woman Hunter.

Horde side, I really love my Orc Woman Shaman. I love her attitude! It's like she's perpetually angry at everything! I enjoy my Tauren Woman and my Goblin Woman.

 

Yes there are times that I play the conventionally attractive characters, but the worst experiences I have had playing came when playing such characters.

 

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.