Women and Armor!

[Amused]

It's strange to me that people consider revealing armor to be "objectifying" when they themselves are the only ones treating the characters wearing it as objects. To me, it really just sounds like "stop liking this thing that I don't like" all while attempting to take the moral high ground too.

[Aegis]

It's strange to me that people consider revealing armor to be "objectifying" when they themselves are the only ones treating the characters wearing it as objects. To me, it really just sounds like "stop liking this thing that I don't like" all while attempting to take the moral high ground too.

Your post essentially comes off as "It's sexist to notice sexism". There is gear that is made more revealing on one single criteria: the gender of the person wearing it. There is literally no other factor in play. Calling that out as sexist is not rocket science.

It's not wearing the armour that is objectification. It's designing and implementing it: the designer has made a nice piece of gear and then, when adapting it for females has thought "This gear needs to show some ass/boob/panties".

The person playing the female character no longer has the option to wear that nice piece of gear without looking revealing. The female character is seen as eye candy, but the male isn't. That's objectification.

I hope that's made the point a bit clearer. As far as I recall, no-one has called anyone out for wearing the gear, it's the unfairness in making serious male gear into more revealing female gear that draws criticism.

To make an analogy: If a business implemented a preferred dress code that was plain, utilitarian for male employees, but micro-skirts, stockings and a boob tube for female employees that employer would be seen as objectifying their female employees. But the female employees themselves wouldn't draw criticism (at least not from the people posting in this thread).

[Amused]

Your post essentially comes off as "It's sexist to notice sexism". There is gear that is made more revealing on one single criteria: the gender of the person wearing it. There is literally no other factor in play. Calling that out as sexist is not rocket science.

Why do they all need to be the same? It would be boring if they were.

The fact that you consider showing skin to be objectifying of women is sexist in itself. It's essentially saying that all women who decide to show off their body are making themselves into objects. A woman choosing to dress in revealing attire is no different than a man creating a woman character dressed in revealing attire as part of his artistic vision.

If they dislike the piece of gear for being revealing, there are multitudes of other options for them to use. The gear being revealing is how it was designed to look. To ask for anything else is essentially asking to change it from what the artist had originally envisioned, which is censorship.

Your analogy is horrible because the women are being forced to dress like that, and are allowed nothing else. These women are real people too, compared to the fictional ones we play in this game. Nobody is forced to wear skimpy armor in this game. Not like there are many armors that are skimpy to begin with, but even for those that are, glamours exists and easily solves the problem of "being forced" to wear it.

[Aegis]

The fact that you consider showing skin to be objectifying of women is sexist in itself.

It's not wearing the armour that is objectification. It's designing and implementing it: the designer has made a nice piece of gear and then, when adapting it for females has thought "This gear needs to show some ass/boob/panties".

The person playing the female character no longer has the option to wear that nice piece of gear without looking revealing. The female character is seen as eye candy, but the male isn't. That's objectification.

It's essentially saying that all women who decide to show off their body are making themselves into objects.

No, no it's not. This has been covered in this thread a hundred times, I'm not doing it again for you.

If they dislike the piece of gear for being revealing, there are multitudes of other options for them to use. The gear being revealing is how it was designed to look. To ask for anything else is essentially asking to change it from what the artist had originally envisioned, which is censorship.

Show me the Dragoon AF a woman character can wear that doesn't look like she forgot to finished getting dressed.

Your analogy is horrible because the women are being forced to dress like that, and are allowed nothing else. These women are real people too, compared to the fictional ones we play in this game. Nobody is forced to wear skimpy armor in this game. Not like there are many armors that are skimpy to begin with, but even for those that are, glamours exists and easily solves the problem of "being forced" to wear it.

1: In my analogy no-one was forced. It was 'preferred'. Read it again.
2: Even if it were force in my analogy they wouldn't be forced to be employed there. They can quit, which is the equivalent of saying "If you don't like the gear, wear something else". "If you don't like the job, work somewhere else"

Pleas at least attempt to read and understand any of the posts in this thread before coming across as wilfully obtuse as you are.

[Teryaani]

1: In my analogy no-one was forced. It was 'preferred'. Read it again.
2: Even if it were force in my analogy they wouldn't be forced to be employed there. They can quit, which is the equivalent of saying "If you don't like the gear, wear something else". "If you don't like the job, work somewhere else"

Pleas at least attempt to read and understand any of the posts in this thread before coming across as wilfully obtuse as you are.

I get where you're coming from, I think (have both options (revealing and not) available for gear sets for both genders - that is what you're saying right?) , but that is a terrible analogy for two reasons. No business has a "preferred" dress code. Dress code is policy. Also, saying they have the option not to work in a place offers a non alternative (work in a small or company town and you'll understand what I mean).

[Amused]

It's not wearing the armour that is objectification. It's designing and implementing it: the designer has made a nice piece of gear and then, when adapting it for females has thought "This gear needs to show some ass/boob/panties".

You just don't get it, do you? If you consider it objectifying as an outfit, then it shouldn't matter who designed it, the outfit is still "objectifying" according to your standards. To insist that it's only objectifying if it's made by a male IS SEXISM.

You keep saying they have no option to wear "that nice piece of gear" because it's objectifying. If they dislike the gear for the way it is, then they really don't consider it a "nice piece of gear" but rather are trying to push their own agenda instead of appreciating the art for what it is, and what it was intended to be.

You are never at ANY point in this game EVER forced to wear revealing armor.

There is no such thing as a "preferred" dress code. If there is a dress code, you abide by it or you face consequences, otherwise there is absolutely no point to having a dress code in the first place if you're just going to let people wear whatever they want. Please show me an example of a business that has a "preferred" dress code. I would love to be proven wrong.

Also, no, quitting is not equivalent to having the option to wear other attire. In the situation that you described, they would be quitting simply because the revealing armor exists and that they refuse to wear anything else because of their masochistic tendencies or whatever is compelling them to not glamour over this item they seem to hate so much.

I still don't get why you're so obsessed with the midriff on the female version of the Dragoon armor too, while completely neglecting that the entire freaking armor set, regardless of gender, is incredibly impractical. It's also pretty damn tame too. Lets get real here, it's literally just a belly. Both men and women have them. What is the problem?

The worst part is that you completely ignore that there are revealing sets in the game for men too. Your argument holds no ground, especially here (this game), and you are absolutely 100% wrong in your stance on this.

[Ophie-Mio]

If they dislike the gear for the way it is, then they really don't consider it a "nice piece of gear" but rather are trying to push their own agenda instead of appreciating the art for what it is, and what it was intended to be.

You are never at ANY point in this game EVER forced to wear revealing armor.

That's not true. If you want the best stats available for the current level, you're gonna be forced into wearing certain pieces. In my earlier post, it's the coliseum shawl... People posted alternatives but that didn't actually make them better. The coliseum shawl is always gonna be better than the Harlequin acton. If I want the best stats, I'm forced into the shawl or I'm gimp.

I still don't get why you're so obsessed with the midriff on the female version of the Dragoon armor too, while completely neglecting that the entire freaking armor set, regardless of gender, is incredibly impractical. It's also pretty damn tame too. Lets get real here, it's literally just a belly. Both men and women have them. What is the problem?

They are obsessed with it because it's the poster child of the man/female armor debate. The debate isn't about the practicality of the armor (which is something way different) but of the whim of the developers to give the males a fully covered stomach and for some reason a belly window for the females.

At the heart of the debate isn't about whether anything is tame or not...it's the choice that (for example) a female DRG should be able to play in the DRG AF without the belly window. It's the choice that the coatee on girls doesn't have to be super revealing.

It's literally about the choice.

The worst part is that you completely ignore that there are revealing sets in the game for men too.

Yeah, and they aren't complaining about it so why bring it up? If they decided that they hated the necklaces and stuff and started to complain about it, then bring up this point.

[Teryaani]

That's not true. If you want the best stats available for the current level, you're gonna be forced into wearing certain pieces. In my earlier post, it's the coliseum shawl... People posted alternatives but that didn't actually make them better. The coliseum shawl is always gonna be better than the Harlequin acton. If I want the best stats, I'm forced into the shawl or I'm gimp.

That argument would work better if you truly needed BIS gear for a particular level to be able to level to 50 or run level appropriate dungeons. You don't.

Also, for a healer, the Coliseum Shawl (Int 10/Vit 9/Mind 10/Crit 15/SS 15) vs the Harlequin's Acton (Mind 10/Vit 9/Piety 8) should be fine. For a caster, the Felt robe offers comparable stats (Int 10/vit 9/Mind 10/crit 15). Heck, for a healer it does. The loss of 15 spell speed doesn't leave you "gimp".

[Remilia_Nightfall]

Yeah, and they aren't complaining about it so why bring it up? If they decided that they hated the necklaces and stuff and started to complain about it, then bring up this point.

We are not complaining about it because we believe it's an unreasonable complaint, for BOTH sexes. We don't feel insulted or "reduced" or threatened or whatever, and we don't insult, "reduce" or threaten female chars by stating we like their skimpy outfits.
If you do, it's your problem and you should deal with it.

TL,DR: We like underboobs and we are going to give our life to defend them.

[Felis]

Hmmm Really!!!! I guess i was distracted at the time (damn slutty female Miqo'te)

I think a "The Emperor's new Shirt" for male would be actually a good idea for glamour ^^