I know this was posted last year in very baity threads with Twitter copy+paste OPs but I genuinely want to have a conversation about this since I'm undecided how I feel about it & I want to discuss it. I think both the "only butthurt zoomers who hate beauty would say this" perspective & the "you just want waifus to coom over" perspective have their issues. On one hand obsession with having beautiful idealized female characters can result in bad art opinions and limits creativity. On the other hand female character aesthetics are generally treated differently by everyone: not just dudes who want everything to be a waifu, but women themselves (and not necessarily with the influence of men). So while this picture is definitely an exaggeration and ignores more recent US animation trends, I do think it's noticing something historically real & there's more complicated reasons behind the phenomenon that can't be simplified in culture war terms.
>>143315132I want a fusion of the evil goth girl and the ugly nerd girl.
>>143315132I find funny how many times twittershit like this has been disproved many times
>>143315132The reason its like this is because men are all inherently more interesting than women.
>>143315132You’re going off of the assumption that the image is true, which it’s not.
>>143315132Basically I think women themselves care more about whether female characters are perceived as attractive or not; even something with "diverse bodies" that intentionally tries to go against beauty standards and counter the idea that women have to look a specific way, like Steven Universe, still tries to make the characters look glamorous & pretty. None of the Crystal Gems are shown as "goofy & dumpy-looking, but charming anyway" like a lot of male characters are - in fact that can be something women take issue with.
>>143315132>all the males are drawn like weirdos,, crazy deformed, disgusting creatures>females are beautifulwhy are they even complaining again?
Goofy and dumpy female characters do exist, but no one wants to give a shit about tjem, and if they do like them, thet end up making them attactive anyway.
didn't read retard, shoot yourself while you watch something terrible
>>143315209>>143315255How many comic/cartoon series can you name, eastern or western, where women are consistently drawn as hyper-cartoony & goofy as the male examples in the OP picture that *actually became really popular*, with men OR women? Again I don't think stuff like Steven Universe is exactly 1:1 >>143315259Even Amethyst is drawn to be cute. it's not really "smashing beauty standards" when a dude into small chubby women can easily "coom" to her. She's not like the truly goofy & comically ugly male character designs you see in stuff like Ren & Stimpy or One Piece, where the artist is truly completely uninterested in making them look attractive.
>>143315340literally everything made by klasky csupo
>>143315340It's because you're a coomer and too harshly judge male attractiveness while downplaying what makes women ugly. Like all those guys who cry about "hot women dating ugly men" when most of the couples they're crying about are either appearance equivalents or even weighted toward the man being attractive.Amethyst has appeal, but unless you're a fetishist, she isn't sexually attractive.
>>143315132Men think it's based to be a chud, Women's fragile ego can't handle not being #1 in everything all the time.
>>143315371This. coomer are gonna coom anything, even stick figures
>>143315368I think those just have an art style that's overall "not idealized" or "ugly" depending on your point of view but even As Told By Ginger clearly represents girls caring about how they look. They fall into the Clasky Csupo STYLE but they don't read as exceptionally goofy characters within their own universe.
>>143315434I bet Courtney could suck the paint off a signpost.
>>143315340one piece is usually the first thing faggots mention to show ''every girl looks the same''. however is the anime with more diversity when is about women. they just complain because they are secondary characters
>>143315434they don't look as goofy as the goofier strawhats in One Piece or even the Eds. there's still a sense of in-universe prettiness even if the universe itself looks goofy/ugly.
>body diversity character design>it's just a girl with a fat ass and neck-thin waistIs this the way to do it? I never hear either side complain.
>>143315474This is what I meant here >>143315259 though:>None of the Crystal Gems are shown as "goofy & dumpy-looking, but charming anyway" like a lot of male characters are - in fact that can be something women take issue with.For example, the One Piece live action staff whined to Oda about Alvida. He didn't really stop making fat woman jokes as a result but that just helps my point that "goofy fatties" are way less acceptable if it's a female character because women care more about how they're perceived in terms of attractiveness. "Nonstandard female character designs" are more well received if they still have a level of prettiness or glamor. That's why I think >>143315371>>143315410 are wrong - characters like the ones in your picture are legitimate examples of straight-up goofy ugly cartoon women and obviously VERY DIFFERENT from Amethyst who is still obviously drawn to be cutesy.Similarly it makes perfect sense people aren't gonna look at Morley and go "uhhh that's great dude, thanks for canonizing this character as having 'the heart of a woman', that's excellent trans representation!" since that design is obviously meant to be goofy and ugly and make you laugh. Not something people are gonna go "yas qween" at.
Women are fundamentally evil and are always acting in bad faith, so do not consider their opinions when discussing or planning media.
>>143315132>"ugly" No need for the quotes.>>143315572I think you could argue that despite his Tranny and gay reps usually being goofy they're also usually good allies with moments of pathos and what not, ontop of EVERYONE in One Piece being goofy. So like you can argue Oda saying "They might be trannies but that doesn't stop them from being top blokes"
>>143315552I personally think there should be no moral/ideological standards of what is "ok or not ok" beyond obvious stuff like "you can't have outright porn or extreme gore in a kids' carton". If you want real diversity you just hire people from various groups *regardless of their sociopolitical views* & let them do what they want. I think that's what Japan's closer to and yet even the most feminist female authors over there will still generally prefer pretty female characters vs going all the way with crazy body variety. Is this really just a result of male society affecting them, or do they just personally, on their own terms, prefer that? Similarly the celebrities women are drawn to are gonna be the pretty ones.That's one of my biggest points with this thread. I don't think OP is *completely* full of shit but I think it's deeper than "male artists only wanting to draw their idealized waifus".
>>143315658Sure but idealized characters still exist in One Piece (based on Oda's own aesthetic standards - whether someone thinks "it's all ugly" doesn't really matter) & there's a clear difference between Okiku and Morley. Pretty obvious whose design is meant to be hot and whose design is meant to make you laugh.
>>143315159Hmmm
>>143315132This is just One Piece
>>143315776One Piece is more like this
>>143315776Nah; there are tons of obvious examples, east and west, like Batman: TAS where the female characters don't reach the same level of cartoony goofiness as the male ones. And again that even happens in stuff by female creators like Fulmetal Alchemist. Not a single female character looks this comical.
>>143315833I feel like DCAU in general has a "everyone is generally the same area of hot" like the people breaking the molds are relatively rare and I'd say the guys are still beating the chicks by single digits. Similarly with Full Metal the amount of truly out there characters are on one hand as well. Like who else are you putting in that camp? Pinako and Sloth?
This is just the visual version of the galbrush conundrum and once again evidence that what people say they want and what they actually invest energy into are different things.
It's funny how much of a molehill this stupid-ass thing is.
>>143315869Azula… easy on the fire flakes…
>>143315132We don’t wanna look at ugly women, ugly women suck.
>>143315132its because no one actually wants to look at ugly bitchesever see when an artist "evolves" their style and the girls have more apparent shape language used in their designs, but most people hate the new version?
>>143316054>i gues i just went too centrist...Oh, blow it out of your ass. If 6 replies not going your way gets you this uppity, then you best get off now.
>>143316126Wasn't trying to get uppity, I just hoped to get a reply from someone who agreed with the OP pic in the past. But ok that was a really lame way of wording it, sorry.
It's because Beauty Equals Goodness and media doesn't really do female characters that are irredeemably evil.Look at >>143315974Now turn off your twitter/tumblr brain and instead of looking at it for gender, look at it for morality alignment. The vast majority of the characters that deviate from the standard are villains, with a couple anti heroes and "monster is secretly a hero" subversions thrown in once in a blue moon.If you want greater diversity in female character design the way to get it would be to have more female villains. And I mean ACTUAL villains, not poor abused woobies put into the antihero pipeline like Harley or femme fatales that can be cured of being criminals by hero dick like Catwoman. Irredeemably shitty "why has no one killed them yet" monsters are the ones that get to look monstrous.Except nobody WANTS to have female villains on that scale of evil.
>twitter tier thread>keeps posting animu Fucking tourists.
>>143315259>zoomers have such low standards that they consider SU characters prettyGrim
>>143316044I can't take seriously anyone that uses female as a noun, specially in plural.
>>143315474Alvida is disingenuous to include
Poasting in a shit thread.
>>143316044I can take seriously everyone that uses female as a noun, specially in plural.
>>143316037>t.guy who has no chance of scoring a hot girl
>>143315761I love it!
If the Pokemon Go incident taught me anything, is that women don't actually like it when they are depicted as ugly, despite them getting mad at pretty characters.
All this is because of "activists". If we stopped listening to them, we'd have better media.I put "activists" in quotations because I'm not talking about the ones trying to make a difference in the world. I'm talking the ones who created stuff like ACT or lead to the TMNT being called Hero Turtles.
>>143316904t. i know all of the epic 4chan lingo, lmao seethe cartoon incel, i would happily lay any cartoon chick and cum profusely
>>143315132Where does my opinion of "female character designs need to be varied, because the female form can be sexy in a variety of different ways" land as? I like skinny bitches, fat bitches, strong bitches, milfs, lolis, every girl between the last two, ass bitches, tiddy bitches, balanced bitches, tall bitches, short bitches, any mix and match that still looks feminine basically. I'm like Jocat with my women. I just want a bunch of girls that physically fit into different niches of being appealing, instead of all being made from the same mold like mass market dolls. But at the same time I don't want amorphous blobs as women like She-Ra (2018) and Steven Universe.
>>143317224jocat fags entered the thread, twitter tourist thread status officially achieved
>>143317224>I'm like Jocat with my women.And how did that work out for him?
>>143316904Show tits
>>143316044Good artists can draw more than one type of sexy girl instead of copypasting the same, like the Dago comics.
One factor is that artists draw what they like and most people like pretty ladies or view ladies as being prettier than them. Is this a social construct? I don't know, maybe. Even Joanna Quinn who is known for drawing fat women draws them in a very appealing way-- but that could be because she has very good draftsmanship. Rebecca Sugar likes cute ladies and chubby guys. You'll notice any of the gems with weirdo designs weren't done by her. However, this is kind of an issue with many cartoons outside of the core cast. Phineas & Ferb's main characters designed in the pitch bible are insane, and then everyone else looks generic. No one else in the show has Phineas' triangular head, he barely looks like he belongs. And that's because the showrunner designed them and a handful of others first and sat on them for years-- probably while their art skills were still developing. Now these designs become a relic of your artistic past but you still sit on them and they feel different than anything you do now.Danny Antonucci is a zany cartoonist who draws mostly from experience of being a guy who likes shocking, gross typical guy stuff so when he has to draw girls, they're still prettier than Eddy. But then you have to wonder, are they ACTUALLY prettier than the boys, or does Sarah's hair simply elevate a design? Like, if Sarah was bald, wouldn't she just look like Johnny? Maybe it's the girly fashion that makes you go, "Oh okay, it's pretty now". Then you get into this whole debate about how fashion is better for girls than boys with the most famous thing being the tuxedo argument, basically the reverse of OP's image.It also has to do with art style. Kim Possible or Star Vs. has a variety of designs, but everyone is equally good looking. Honestly, nobody in the industry right now has Vasquez' level of "fuck the rules" art style where he's the only one that disregards all the 101 rules of character design and says, "Fuck it, woman with chiseled jaw" and it works.
>>143317163>t. Retard
