Why doesn't Male clothign sell better?

[James R.]

To be more accurate, I was told by a woman friend that my characters are "modern archetypes" due to popular culture, and therefore they are now stereotypes. (This declaration was made with no regard or understanding of the backstory of any of these characters, so in reality it doesn't hold much water.)

So for example... because of Carrie Fisher as Princess/General Leia, and because of the character of Vaquez in Aliens, and Linda Hamilton as Sarah Connor in Terminator 2, and Sarah Michelle Gellar as Buffy, and Michelle Rodriguez as a badass woman in... well, pretty much every movie she's been in... that my woman characters who are pilots, or a soldiers, or adventuring elfs, or androids (???), or ballet-teaching ninja assassin spacefaring portrait-painting divorced lesbian UPS delivery specialists (okay I just made that one up) are now stereotypes of The Strong Independent Woman and are therefore now somehow burdensome in some way.

 

[Satira Capriccio]

I call BS.

I swear, sometimes people get so hung up on "labels," they lose sight of any sense. I'd far rather read books (or see art) about strong independent women than the helpless female who always needed to be rescued which is what my generation grew up with for role models.

 

[James R.]

I call BS.

I swear, sometimes people get so hung up on "labels," they lose sight of any sense. I'd far rather read books (or see art) about strong independent women than the helpless female who always needed to be rescued which is what my generation grew up with for role models.

I agree. It is BS, IMO. I told her so. What mystifies me is that she is an ardent feminist.

Y'know...the world is labeling itself to death. We're dividing and subdividing ourselves into categories and smaller and smaller groups, like we're scientifically classifying bugs or bacteria, like we want to make absolutely sure we know what our differences are. And all it does is drive everyone apart.

On top of this, we humans have always had a tendency to tear down our heroes after a period of time. "Ghandi was a pervert who liked young girls"..."Churchill was an abusive jerk"..."John Lennon was an arrogant d*ck" (not a duck)...

But the time period between someone or some group being elevated and being torn down is getting smaller and smaller. Humans immediately go looking for flaws as soon as something becomes popular. I don't know why this is. I don't understand this need to divide and destroy.

Anyway, I have gotten way off the thread topic here... apologies, everyone.

 

[RAMWolff]

How do you think some gays feel in the LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ community! I for one and so tired of labels and folks "summing up" someone else with them and they don't even know the person, their interests, job, home life or anything else.... labels suck balls!

 

[eclark1894]

You guys do realize , of course, that labels is how we communicate with each other, right? The most fundamental problem in all forms of human relationships across national boundaries , across wars, marriages, boyfriend- girlfriend, friend -friend, boss, employee, parent-child, sibling, etc. comes down to how well, people can communicate with each other. If you start monkeying around with the language we use to communicate with by telling people that you can't call a rose a rose because it's labeling someone and it might offend them , or we start changing words around, or inventing new words (ironically, still labeling yourself to do so), it is the surest way to have human society fall into anarchy because now you can't agree on anything because you can no longer communicate effectively. Just my two cents and now I'm done with this side track.

 

[James R.]

They really do @RAMWolff.

There’s always an assumption or stereotype or bias that comes with a label.

“So you’re _______?”

“Yes, I am.”

“Oh.” *attitude towards that person changes*

It’s very hard not to label people though. I think almost everyone does it to some degree (I’m not defending it).

Rather than make a real effort towards understanding, acceptance, or even just tolerance, we humans find it’s far easier to just “file” a person or group under a convenient label with a built-in definition.

 

[phdubrov]

Rather than make a real effort towards understanding, acceptance, or even just tolerance, we humans find it’s far easier to just “file” a person or group under a convenient label with a built-in definition.

Don't see a contradiction here. Without categorization, we can't even recognize a person.

 

[Ken1171]

People can't even agree if Lara Croft is the role model for independent strong woman, or the objectified counterpart because she is also pretty and sexy. I wonder if pretty girls would ever be accepted for being anything more than that? In some of the video games, the studios made her bustier in every release, up to the point where I wonder how she could still walk on narrow ledges without bouncing off the walls.

AJ has played her role as an arrogant jerk in the movies, in a similar way that James Bond is a helpless womanizer. That version of Lara plays men who fall for her physical attributes, taking advantage of them to her own agenda. I am not sure if Lara was arrogant because she was rich, or because she was young and attractive? Or maybe a combination of both? In either case, I believe that made her more believable because that's how real people behave in the real world. They take advantage of whatever attributes they have.

Would people accept Lara more universally in the role of the independent strong woman if she weren't a sexy young lady? Is that incompatible with the role? However, that could probably ruin her character design as the female lead action character. Think of the game art covers - not good. People demand the lead character to be handsome. More likely, people originally bought the game because there was a pretty young girl on the cover, and later discovered she was more than just that.

Another strong independent female lead character from video games was April Ryan, from the Dreamfall series. Her first appearance was in a dream sequence, wearing no much more than her underwear. However, she was NOT objectified anywhere in the rest of the game, where she has played a remarkable leading role. The fact that she was a sexy young lady became irrelevant in the game.

As a last example, Bernoit Sokal has created another [less known] strong, independent female lead character who wasn't particularly sexy, and was definitely not rich - Kate Walker from the Syberia game series. She was never objectified in the games, and yet retained the qualities of her role without ever having to rely on physical attributes.

So we do have Kate and April as successful strong female lead characters in video games, but they never achieved the same cult level status as Lara. Neither Kate nor April carried guns or wore swimsuits in their games. I guess that defines 2 different classes of strong female lead characters, where the one who was objectified was the one who achieved a higher level of fame and status. Maybe that's what it takes to get there, no matter what people think of it.

 

[James R.]

Don't see a contradiction here. Without categorization, we can't even recognize a person.

I think you may have missed my point.

I'm not saying all labels are bad. Nor am I talking about basic categorization: "He has brown hair." "She is tall." "She is a child." "He is elderly."

I'm also not talking about labels and categorizations that we use to provide services for people. I worked in education, sometimes with children with special needs, and educators use labels in order to provide service for those children. "He has high functioning autism." "She has ADHD." If we didn't have those labels, we wouldn't be able to provide services and help those children effectively. In this example, we don't stop with the label. This is the key.

What I'm talking about is how we humans use labels to dismiss and depersonalize people rather than understand them or see them as our human equals. I'm talking about labels we apply to others, stopping there at that point, with no further attempt at understanding. This is reducing a person to a mere word. That's the depersonalization of labels.

Rather than see people for who they are, as complex individuals, humans tend to label each other based on surface impressions thus reducing them to something that can be dismissed at any whim.

Any person here is far more complex than any label anyone can put on them. You are, I am. So are the kids I worked with.

Labels, while useful, are too often used to reduce people to less than they are; to depersonalize a person or group so that we don't have to deal with them on our level. Labels can allow people to feel superior to others.

This is what I'm talking about.

 

[James R.]

....And I still don't know why male clothing doesn't sell better, though there were some good points earlier in the thread.

 

[phdubrov]

Because many women prefer to render women (and children) too. And family groups. You can look through the gallery here: there are more women's portraits than men's. And there are a lot of group's renders. (And here we have a well gender-balanced and respectful community.)
Same with the age bracket. Almost all "grow-up" products that I had seen stops at ~35, 40. Very few go in the really old age. But (as I said earlier in the thread) this is common in the art in general nowadays.

 

[Ken1171]

Because many women prefer to render women (and children) too.

This is true, I have noticed many female artists at DeviantArt prefer to depict female characters, and this is mostly involving 2D drawings. When I asked why, some claim it's personal preference, and others say it's because they don't know how to draw male characters.

This is to show that female characters are preferred independent of artist media or gender.

 

[Dakorillon (IMArts)]

Well, if you look at art going back into the ages, You find more females depicted than males. You may find males as knights, or religious figures. And you find males as portraits for the castle wall. But, you still generally find more females, even if the artist had to use a MALE to draw the female, which is why some older works the women look very strangely proportioned!
I'll have to ask an art history friend if he has an opinion why.

 

[Rae134]

In art history it is taught up until the 20th century that art was designed for the male viewer. So images of men were ones of power (as warriors or wealthy) even portraits of women are shown as power or wealth of the men in her life (think of the jewellery and clothing in the portraits). The female nudes depicted women as passive (whereas the men are active) to perhaps show they are available to the male viewer (I don't see much difference in some of todays art except that men are now drawn like this too, perhaps because homosexuality is more accepted now? Because most of the male nudes drawn like females always have been seem to be homo-erotica tho some women do enjoy it as well).

 

[Ken1171]

Depictions of effeminated men has come mainly from Asian sources, mostly Japanese influence from what I could see at DeviantArt - and also mainly done by female artists. In Japanese culture, that is not necessarily a sign of homosexualism, but instead that a "complete" person should be made of both a male and a female side. This probably came from Chinese Taoist philosophy, which is quite ancient. This is often misinterpreted in the West, where Taoism is mostly unknown. That duality is represented by the Yin and Yang emblem, very known in the West, but its meaning is often missed.

 

[Rae134]

Yes, that's a cultural thing, I was mainly speaking of Western Art from ancient to now. I've seen some beautiful Anime males.

 

[Ken1171]

Oh yes, those are called "Bishounen", meaning "beautiful young boys", usually featuring several female features, such as long curly hair, long lashes, a slender constitution, and a delicate face. This style was created to suit the way Japanese girls visualize men. It's a man as seen by a woman, so he carries many female traits. These "boys" tend to be very self-aware and fashionable, self-confident, and like all the kinds of things real men don't. LOL If men could be reinvented by women, they would probably be that way - a female projection of a man.

 

[Rae134]

Not by me, I like a manly man, think Hugh as Wolverine (as long as the body isn't overly hairy, I don't like gorillas )

 

[eclark1894]

Not by me, I like a manly man, think Hugh as Wolverine (as long as the body isn't overly hairy, I don't like gorillas )

Maybe not,but japanese women are the only ones who visualize somewhat effeminent males. Usually long hair on the head flowing in the wind, shirtless or somewhat so, usually rather buff though, but other than the head, usually hairless.

 

[Ken1171]

Chances are most women will prefer actual men to a female-projected one. Maybe the Bishounen style is more suited for younger girls who still have a lot of illusions concerning what men are all about. The Bishounen boys are conceptualized to be "dream boys" in a way that younger girls can identify with by projecting themselves into them.

However, there is the other side of the concept, where there is a significant number of women who find it attractive if these Bishounen boys are attracted to other boys. I first thought this only happened in Japan, but now I know this is a much wider spread concept. I have seen women of all ages and nationalities depicting Bishounen boys that way. When I asked why, many have claimed they find it attractive in the same way men like to see women with another woman. I was actually commissioned several times to create scenes like that, but it is out of my league and I tend to decline it.

Maybe the homo-Bishounen might be attractive to women because they become unattainable to them. It's human nature to desire what they can't have. Women are used to be approached by men, but a homo-Bishounen are not interested on them at all. Maybe those women are tired of men being all over them all the time, and seek for those who are not. That's a theory I have.