@Riot A serious discussion about gender. Please read

First Riot Post
Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Shaella

Senior Member

10-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by akorshikai View Post
I DARE SOME ONE TO EFFECTIVELY COUNTER ARGUE THIS NEXT POINT.

it is fantasy not real life, to compare girls in real life to this saying its sexualized, is so off. they are different meaning. for example.. how many guys get " sexy"? put on a suit and groom themselves well. does this make gentleman cho gath sexualized?

many girls love the idea of " captain jack sparrow" and before you say it, its not just johny dep but the pirate captain jack sparrow himself. does that mean gangplank is sexualized?

no for you to compare real life examples for females and then declassify them for males just shows how weak the argument is. either accept they are both sexualized or they both aren't. end game gg gd
i wouldn't consider those sexualized, there's a difference between working just straight up *** appeal as opposed to suits, which are going for classy, and the jack sparrow thing, which is going for a bad boy thing

Sexualized means emphasizing the sexual aspects of that person, and i don't see many male characters that do that


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

MTaur

Senior Member

10-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by helltronX View Post
Don't feel like doing research but I don't think its okay for women to get screwed out of money like what happened in that study. My point was that you're going to get a lot of women blaming their lesser salary on them being female instead of them having poor performance, similar to how people blame anything and everything on them being in Elo Hell except for their performance. Also men would do the exact same thing, which is why I think you would get a lot of incompetent people paid exactly the same as someone who probably deserved what they got in the first place. W/e for the record I don't think its OK for women to get less money just for being women.
Your point was that affirmative action will lead to women systematically getting more money/jobs than they deserve. Here's an analogy.

A professor is grading papers. He isn't perfect. He randomly grades somewhere between one letter grade too high and one letter grade too low for papers with a male name on them. Additionally, even though he's not doing it on purpose, he grades papers with female names on them on average one half-letter grade lower than we does an equivalent paper with a male name on it.

Affirmative action says that we should take that into account and add half a letter grade to the scores of every paper with a female name on it. Will that cause a lot of women to get As or B+s when they deserved Bs? Yes. And that just means that they're getting treated like men for once. (Meanwhile, Suzie was going to get a D+, but at least she has a C now, if not the B that she deserved. Joe is getting an A when he deserved a B, and Judy is getting an A when she deserved a B. You're only upset about Judy. Joe and Suzie were both absent from your first post.)

It simply won't work to hope that everyone will be objective and only go after the most egregiously intentional offenders and leave everything else alone. If there's a bias of -.5, a clumsy +.5 restores more overall balance than doing nothing and hoping for the best.

The study reported an average bias of .7 letter grades (.7 on a 1-5 scale, actually). The story you told was that affirmative action is unfair because basically a bunch of women with no skill are coasting along getting freebies.

But apparently you can't be bothered to read the one-page New York Times article, but you are qualified to judge women as largely incompetent affirmative action freeloaders, based on nothing but your assumption that gender bias isn't real except for maybe in the worst 5%. Nope, it's all over the place to the point where people who are professionally trained to be objective are biased by .7 on a 1-5 scale. That's freaking huge, uguyz.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/25/sc...tudy-says.html


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Emailsúpport

Member

10-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by SupahMonkiee View Post
I disagree.

Tryndamere, especially in his new splash art, is concealed by his giant sword and all you can really see is his right arm. Pantheon has armor covering his chest and is not in a position that accentuates his physique. Kassadin is the only one of the 3 flaunting his bare naked chest, but keep in mind that he is extremely purple and does have tubes and horns adorning him, making him not so attractive and much less sexualized.
Sejuani has horns too.
I keep forgetting they changed Tryndamere's splash art and I was talking about Ruthless Pantheon.

Oh, what about Varus? That makes it two, Varus and Kassadin.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Shaella

Senior Member

10-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ensig View Post
Yes, go ahead and twist my words. Try using some common sense please instead of making yourself look like a fool.
I was making a point with absurdity.

part of games IS things that are aesthetically pleasing.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

mogonk

This user has referred a friend to League of Legends, click for more information

Senior Member

10-07-2012

Pretty awesome article about this exact subject in case you haven't seen it already:
http://gomakemeasandwich.wordpress.c...gue+of+legends

old, but good


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

brynsul

Senior Member

10-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by MathMage View Post
Hey, guys? Guys? Can we clear up just one thing here?

A lot of the male champions look stupid too. Kassadin's muscles aren't just ripped, they're WTF ridiculous. Tryndamere is a ****ing brick. Traditional Lee Sin has the same stupid upside-down pyramid torso that Tryndamere's old skin had. Varus is randomly naked down to where I'd expect his uppermost pubic hair to start showing through, if he still has any after what happened to him. Ruthless Pantheon is a stripper skin.

That doesn't mean the female champions don't have an issue with sexualization. It means BOTH genders have problems that should be fixed.

So can the feminists please stop arguing that the male skins have no significant problems? And can the Riot apologists please stop arguing that because male skins are also sexualized (debatable), that this somehow makes everything okay because both genders are equally badly portrayed?

Thanks.

I 100% agree with this guy.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

L2 Sentinel

Senior Member

10-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaella View Post
so why can't we have women portrayed the same way
We can. Sun Goddess Karma received praise from me even though her belly is showing. Irelia has cleavage, but she isn't shoving her chest out to show it off. The problem is when a female champion is exposing her body, she is also usually contorting her body in a suggestive way. The only champion I can think of off hand that I might have been inconsistent on is Nidalee, but she has fetish skins so I don't feel inclined to move her in the list of champions that aren't sexualized at all.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Emailsúpport

Member

10-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaella View Post
so why can't we have women portrayed the same way
We have women portrayed the same way, see Irelia, Riven, Leona, Diana, Vayne, Karma, Kayle, I probably missed someone.
Some women are sexualized sure, some show a little bit of cleavage but that could be compared with male champions showing off muscles.
Also, Varus and Ezreal looks like ****ing females., if that's what attractive, just play female champions.

Why do you keep changing subject?

Like a few hours ago, the problem was the females having identical body types and the males not, now it's suddenly about clothing.
Rahuel stick to fkn hello kitty adventure.


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Shaella

Senior Member

10-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rauhel View Post
We can. Sun Goddess Karma received praise from me even though her belly is showing. Irelia has cleavage, but she isn't shoving her chest out to show it off. The problem is when a female champion is exposing her body, she is also usually contorting her body in a suggestive way. The only champion I can think of off hand that I might have been inconsistent on is Nidalee, but she has fetish skins so I don't feel inclined to move her in the list of champions that aren't sexualized at all.
Whos Karma?

Also, >Irelia
hoahoahgoahgoha

THERE WAS A ****STORM TO GET THAT TO HAPPEN SON


Comment below rating threshold, click here to show it.

Shaella

Senior Member

10-07-2012

Quote:
Originally Posted by Emailsúpport View Post
We have women portrayed the same way, see Irelia, Riven, Leona, Diana, Vayne, Kayle etc.

Why do you keep changing subject?
And I like all of those champions, but they're also far in the minority,

But my main problem remains with body types.