Are Female Armors Denigrating?

[Ihoe]

Just trying to enter the discussion as this might have been mentioned before... how is "Armor" supposed to protect if it actually doesn't protect the important areas???

Let's face it, how high are the chances of a female warrior being stabbed in the nipples, feet or genitalia? As these are the main areas stereotypical JRPG female armors protect. Mostly.

 

point, thread title says it all, there are no versions of any armors that this topic refers to in RL, they would be useless vs modern weaponry ergo, topic refers to game/fantasy armors since ancient/historic armor as has (mostly) been established would have been fitted for the human form and not gender specific.

 

point 2: Feet were protected, being stabbed less of a concern then being stomped. you crush an opponents foot you've hampered their mobility and ability to effectively defend themselves. If you were attempting to interject reality into this, light armor would be more practical than the full head to toe of any other kind. Skyrim for example, anything but the fur/hide would exhaust you in RL in short order trying to haul that around, move up to the heavy full coverage and you'd last maybe 3 hours before exhaustion, muscle fatigue and dehydration set in. not counting trying to fight in it.

 

even in reality, lighter armors only covering vital areas are more practical for running around in 24/7 than full coverage or heavier armors. don't believe? strap on some plate mail and then go hiking...see how long you last. heavy armor is just that...heavy, also hot, and impedes mobility. while jrpg armors are designed more for appeal than protection...they're more practical/realistic than traipsing across tamriel in full plate. hike, climb or jump up the sides of mountains in full heavy armor? lol you wouldn't even make it up the steps to the greybeards.

 

RL mobility/agility by itself is a form of protection. vs a heavily armored opponent...you'll win.

game reality, all the things that make heavy armor a liability are ignored so vs light, heavy wins.

your premise that jrpg armor is impractical didn't apply to RL, it only applied to game logic. since it's a game...anythings viable.

 

1. Being stabbed was only a metaphor for taking damage on general. Sorry for not making it clearer. The op refers to "sexy" "alluring" "revealing" armors specifically. Although reading your whole post made my eyes sore, i didn't understand what you meant with the first paragraph.

 

2. The armors I am referring to (see above) provide a very thin sheet of [insert material] over the foot, which would hardly provide any protection against blunt force. Try to crush your feet with a hammer while wearing leather boots. Send me the results. Ancient warriors were trained to carry Huge amounts of weight just to march, even more to fight. Ever heard about Spartans carrying whole boulders to mountaintops two times a day while running? Roman legionaries who marched 7kms a day in full heavy armor? Immortals that did push ups with large rocks on their backs (not as- nevermind)? These may seem exaggerated, but they may not be. What is breathtaking to the puny human body of today might have been a piece of cake for ancient athletes.

 

3. No single armor is "practical" for running around 24/7. If you mean the armors mentioned by the OP are more practical for having less material = less weight, you're right. But an armor that DOES NOT Cover the vital areas of the body (chest, head, legs, arms, abdomen/waist). Wearing no armor at all would be more practical.

 

Also, you seem to misunderstand me, my thesis is comparing these armors to RL, and judging based on what they would do IRL. Not comparing the ingame stats, why would I do that?

Edited January 3, 2012 by Ihoe

[dazzerfong]

Your problem, lhoe, is that you're just trying to wiggle out of your situation you placed yourself in by being too vague.

 

1. You said that it protects the 'nipples, feet or genitalia'. That's still armor, whether you like it or not.

2. Too little sample of women fighting to know what's going on.

3. Same as above. But most of them feature armor that's very similar to men, that I admit.

4. Wow, I can't believe you just said that. Of course they involve art! If there's no concept arts, there wouldn't be the game itself! Of course, you not being an artist, you would not understand.

 

And, I'll discuss the 3 points above:

 

1. Your fault for being not specific, really.

2. We already established that.

3. In reality, yes. In games, no.

 

Right now, the focus of the topic is on fictional representations of female armor, not real life.

Edited January 3, 2012 by dazzerfong

[grannywils]

The topic is pretty numpty if you ask me anyway.

 

It's all personal taste.

 

I missed those historical photographs of Joan of Arc.

 

Most women who fought in historical times passed themselves off as men as much as possible.

 

We're trying not to do that in our games, speaking for the majority. Yes I'm taking liberty to speak for the majority because the download counts for feminine skimpy armors make me feel pretty darn confidant about that, at the very least.

 

Myrmaad, what is "numpty"? :(

[Aurielius]

Myrmaad, what is "numpty"? :(

 

 

Scottish slang: Numpty

Someone who (sometimes unwittingly) by speech or action demonstrates a lack of knowledge or misconception of a particular subject or situation to the amusement of others.

[dazzerfong]

OK, can we just end this entire debate by just saying 'their artists, their depictions'? Really, it's just what the artists like. If you don't like it, fair enough: I don't think everyone in the world loves the Mona Lisa.

[myrmaad]

There is no historical reference because our history precluded women warriors because of persistent social patriarchal attitudes that devalued the role of women in society.

 

So any women who wanted to be a warrior would normally have to pass herself off as a boy.

 

If there were examples of women who battled as women with any semblance of female armors, they've been mostly lost to history as women have not written the history books, haven't even had a possibility of an opportunity to do so until the very last few decades.

 

But we are not discussing the role of women historically on earth. Nirn is not earth. There is no such persistent patriarchal lore that we must feed, and as far as I am concerned imagination rules the day.

 

I don't think the debate is over whether female armors are denigrating is actually over, because in my opinion, some are. But not simply because there are bikinis.

But not all are, and some that are overly covered up, I feel, can be denigrating. I will not be shamed by being female. I will revel in it. I will glory in it.

[Ihoe]

Your problem, lhoe, is that you're just trying to wiggle out of your situation you placed yourself in by being too vague.

 

1. You said that it protects the 'nipples, feet or genitalia'. That's still armor, whether you like it or not.

2. Too little sample of women fighting to know what's going on.

3. Same as above. But most of them feature armor that's very similar to men, that I admit.

4. Wow, I can't believe you just said that. Of course they involve art! If there's no concept arts, there wouldn't be the game itself! Of course, you not being an artist, you would not understand.

 

And, I'll discuss the 3 points above:

 

1. Your fault for being not specific, really.

2. We already established that.

3. In reality, yes. In games, no.

 

Right now, the focus of the topic is on fictional representations of female armor, not real life.

Yeah right. Well, whatever you say. I can't write a post half a mile long for everyone. In a nutshell I don't think they're realistic. At all.

 

By god now I realize I missed the whole point of the topic. Silly me, how can armor be denigrating??? It just denigrates the wearer and maker, in the views of those that oppose the whole idea. Besides, who gives a [cen] about the denigration of some video game avatar???

Edited January 4, 2012 by Ihoe

[dazzerfong]

Fair enough: you might not like it, I might like it. There's nothing wrong with that. I don't understand why you seem so annoyed, though.

 

By god now I realize I missed the whole point of the topic. Silly me, how can armor be denigrating??? It just denigrates the wearer and maker, in the views of those that oppose the whole idea. Besides, who gives a [cen] about the denigration of some video game avatar???

 

Everything in this world is essentially an opinion, so good point.

Edited January 4, 2012 by dazzerfong

[marharth]

I really don't get why people care so much.

 

Most of them are unrealistic and not very immersive so I don't like them. I really don't get why people care so much though.

[grannywils]

Myrmaad, what is "numpty"? :(

 

 

Scottish slang: Numpty

Someone who (sometimes unwittingly) by speech or action demonstrates a lack of knowledge or misconception of a particular subject or situation to the amusement of others.

 

Thank you Aurielius (and Silver, who also left me a message on my profile page) for enlightening me on this word). I had not heard it before, and I always love to learn something new :thumbsup: