Women and Armor!

[saber_alter]

Meanwhile, dragoon armor has women's stomach exposed. Why? What is that even for?

seemed like a good idea at the time.

[Zedd702]

Darklight Gloves of Casting!

There are a few thigh high boots I can wear but I'm really talking about socks.

I can post pictures of some irl guys that look delicious in thigh highs and skirts to dispute, not to mention that knee highs and kilts (essentially skirts) are totally a thing for certain countries.

Yes I must have those gloves :3. Your character would be naked if you were on shiva. I'd have totally jacked this outfit, though purple would not look as great on my character as yours, but I have been busy fundraising gil to get my glamour on

[Remilia_Nightfall]

I never said, or even implied, that the entertainment industry is what has built our gender roles over the years, just that the people within it are as bound by them as anyone - possibly moreso, since a large part of entertainment is trying to predict what folks will be entertained by. The status quo is godly for them, and a predicatable audience is easier to entertain. Regardless, on to the important bit of your post:

One could use the same argument to say that enslavement of other humans is natural. You'd simply need to make the argument two centuries ago. Humans keep slaves, therefore slavery is natural. Marginalization of women throughout history in much of the world has often put them in a position where they had as few rights as slaves do. Also quite natural by this argument. No god forced humans to take other humans as slaves. No god forced men to make women slaves. And yet it happened. All perfectly natural, no?

It has been dreadfully recent that people have started to come to the realization that women as slaves to men, whether it is natural or not, is NOT okay, and this is a realization that is STILL not universally accepted throughout the world. "It is the way it is" is not an excuse or a valid explanation. That's exactly why debates like this are worthwhile. "A heroine can be badass, but she must also be pretty." That's the way it is, sure. WHY is that the way it is? Is that they only way it can be? Is that the way it should be?

Sexualization of women in media is a remnant of womens' previous expected role as servants to men. Women were property in all but name (sometimes in name as well), and part of owning property is bragging about how your property is better than the next guy's. Beauty became a large part of what defined one woman as "better" than another, since women were not expected to excel in things like warfare, scholarly pursuits, and so on. (This isn't to say that there aren't plenty of women who DID excel in those things - but such was not expected, and those exceptions were noted as being, well, exceptional for their time, even when studied today.)

So, beauty became a standard in what makes a woman good, in the eyes of both men and women. That is how it is. Things have changed a lot, now, though. It's become widely recognized that women not only can, but SHOULD excel in pursuits other than homemaking, just as men do.

tl;dr: "Things turned out that way" doesn't equate to "things are the way that they should be". Humans aren't perfect, and can never be perfect, but should always strive for perfection. "It's just the way things are" is never an acceptable answer.

It is right that what is just should be obeyed; it is necessary that what is strongest should be obeyed. Justice without might is helpless; might without justice is tyrannical. Justice without might is denied, because there are always offenders; might without justice is condemned. We must then combine justice and might, and for this end make what is just strong, or what is strong just.

Justice is subject to dispute; might is easily recognized and is not disputed. So we cannot give might to justice, because might has denied justice, and has declared that it is she herself who is just. And thus being unable to make what is just strong, we have made what is strong just.

Blaise Pascal (1623–1662). Thoughts.

[Fyrebrand]

The odd thing is, the male dragoon armor and the female dragoon armor are nearly identical. The only obvious difference is the female one has the belly part missing. Why even do that? I mean, I'm not that naive, I know why they did it -- but it seems so random and pointless, almost even mean-spirited toward females. It's like the designer actually thought about throwing gals a bone, and giving them the sensible armor guys get, for a change. But then at the last minute they realized the females weren't meeting their "sexy quota" so they just lazily deleted that one bit of texture over the middle. Look, you can even see where it connects to the rest of the armor. The borders around it are the same for the male and female.

If both male and female armor had the belly exposed like that, people would be laughing at how silly dragoons look. It would not be a big debate. Everyone would be pointing out how stupid that was. But because it's just females who have it done to them, it's considered "normal" and anyone who talks about it is considered some kind of radical nutcase just looking for something to complain about.

And again, I want to point out that I am not saying sexy, skimpy, skin-exposing outfits should be off the table. But it's supposed to be the same armor the male and female are both wearing! In this case, it would have been so easy to just give players the option of what they want cut out of their gear or not. We have the option to display or hide headwear. We can use /visor on some helmets to adjust how open it is. Why not a similar type of option on other select bits of armor? Like, for this middle section of the dragoon chestpiece, it would be extremely simple to just have a Display/Hide toggle in the character window. That way, anyone can have it, if that's their thing -- but it's not forcing anyone.

[Zedd702]

Bleh, I really have no qualm with the armor issue but it's easily resolved to appease both sides. If they would consider "visor-like" options in the future for pieces like this or even implement one for armors like the story ones that should rectify the situation. Most like the sex appeal, some don't.

So if they implemented an option where to turn on the "visor-like" setting then it would expose the stomach for those that like it, while if you turn it off, chainmail/mesh or whatever would fill the void.

Problem solved.

Perhaps someone should just start a petition thread to see just how many people actually want the change. If there are enough voices, they will listen or give us the finger. Do remember though, forums is a very small minority of the actual player base... So there maybe people that want the change and don't like forums, which I don't blame them, but everyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter and should not be ignored because others are happy with the design, after all we ALL pay for the content. Me? I don't care either way... I understand both sides.

[Amused]

The odd thing is, the male dragoon armor and the female dragoon armor are nearly identical. The only obvious difference is the female one has the belly part missing. Why even do that? I mean, I'm not that naive, I know why they did it -- but it seems so random and pointless, almost even mean-spirited toward females.

You're going all out with the trolling now, eh?

I'm not taking the bait.

[HakuroDK]

You're going all out with the trolling now, eh?

I'm not taking the bait.

I wouldn't call it trolling.

According to the urban dictionary (one of the few sources that has a definition not related to fishing):

Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.
Guy: "I just found the coolest ninja pencil in existence."
Other Guy: "I just found the most retarded thread in existence."

(source)

Fyrebrand's argument is valid and isn't at all a troll. It's a bit of an overreaction to call it "mean-spirited", sure, but it's certainly a valid question as to why, exactly, there is a belly part missing from the DRG armor.

[Nestama]

I don't see where the issue is...

Me neither.


(I wear a lotus pink tricorne and 'skin coloured' subligar now. I just haven't screenshot it yet)

[Remilia_Nightfall]

I wouldn't call it trolling.

According to the urban dictionary (one of the few sources that has a definition not related to fishing):



(source)

Fyrebrand's argument is valid and isn't at all a troll. It's a bit of an overreaction to call it "mean-spirited", sure, but it's certainly a valid question as to why, exactly, there is a belly part missing from the DRG armor.

Come on. We all know WHY it's there already. What do you want to hear?

Keep shouting, if you guys end up being the most vocal about it, SE will oblige you. Be ready to shout A LOT, tho.
Please refer to my previous reply, if you will.

[NozomiKei]

Yes I must have those gloves :3. Your character would be naked if you were on shiva. I'd have totally jacked this outfit, though purple would not look as great on my character as yours, but I have been busy fundraising gil to get my glamour on

Eh, what do you mean I'd be naked? I do joke that I'm like Shiva's brother or something, his name would be Shiver. Go for it, it's an awesome outfit to run around in; I'm so happy they gave males the same option as the females instead of forcing us to wear some "masculine" version of these items. ^_^

OMG Nestama, you're standing in front of a house in the same place as our FC mansion!

I proposed a text command back like ten pages or something. /altfeet, /altlegs, /altbody, etc.