Johann

It's a bit complicated, so bear with me. It goes back to what I was saying earlier-- because of the way we've been conditioned to look at men and women, the things that would make a woman objectified don't necessarily make a man objectified. This is due to the societal power imbalance between men and women, such as how women are often sexually exploited (such as assault, coercion, and abuse) and how straight men are largely catered to by media, and experience generally less bullshit for their gender. Because of these things, if you present a female character in, say, their underwear, the context is completely different from a man being in their underwear (which is usually used for humor). Now, what solidifies it as objectification is the other ways that character is presented, as not everything is clothing. Remembering that these characters are fictional, and therefore there are no hard rules for what can and can't happen, everything exists because someone creating them decided to make them that way. Lemme break it down into the main aspects of presentation, looking at two characters on opposite ends of the objectification scale: Titania and Camilla. Characterization: Within the narrative, how do they relate to the other characters? Do they have their own motivations that are separate from other characters (particularly the male characters) like Titania, or are they basically just exist for the sake of another character like Camilla? Titania's motivation is to look out for everybody, teach them, offer her opinions on complicated subjects, etc. Camilla's is to... hug the player and take baths I guess? Those things (admittedly not all does, but they stand out) are there more to reinforce sexual fantasies for the player rather than develop who she's supposed to be. If you take the player/Ike away from Titania, you still have a lot of characterization. If you take the player/Corrin away from Camilla, what's left? Attire: A character's clothing/armor can tell us some details about who they're supposed to be at a glance. Titania's armor is pleasing to the eye, but is also realistic and functional, and suits her characterization. Perhaps they designed her that way so the player would think of her as an actual sister/mother figure. Meanwhile, Camilla's armor is simply designed to focus on her boobs-- the contrast between her skin color and the armor tone and how they're jutted outwards make them really hard to miss. There are countless examples of female characters having armor that is designed to highlight certain body parts, notably their chest and legs (notice how many female characters have exposed thighs, even if they're otherwise quite covered). Side note and less of a objectification thing but also rather silly, notice how many female characters are wearing high heels with their armor as well. Poses/Camera Angle: This is more of a thing in cinematic games, but at least with FEH we can look at the art. Titania's standing upright like a normal person stands. Camilla bends over and sticks her chest and ass out. Consider how many other characters do this awkward pose to emphasize their chest and ass. Alternatively, there's the "boobs-and-butt" pose, where their ass is facing the camera and they're turning around so you can see their boobs too. Awkward as all hell. Side note: Camilla fans, I'm sorry but your girl is perfect for these discussions. I don't begrudge any of you for liking her for whatever reason, but I do recommend you take the time to think about why she's designed the way she is and reflect on what, if anything, you would have preferred be different about her character. Try looking at these aspects in the male characters. Niles is flirty with the player and sometimes given some clothes that expose his chest slightly, but he's probably the only overt example (not a good look that he's also a stereotypical depraved bisexual). Hawkeye exposes his muscular body, but that's the end of anything sexual from him; many players (especially if they hear his quotes) will look at his muscles and think he's a powerful man, not a sexual one (though, to be fair, Hawkeye canonically fucks). A few other characters (like Linus) expose their chests a bit for no reason, but does this imply sexuality? It can be inferred, but it could also be inferred that this is to imply sexual desirability, that is, the character is being cool or whatever. Note, however, that where outfits like Camilla's is designed to draw your attention to her chest, the only male character I can think of that is designed to draw your attention to the naughty bits is Volug. Ultimately, the creators are designing these characters this way because they figure this is what you want, and in the case of the male characters, the lack of sexual attributes in their presentation implies that they don't think you want sexy men. Frankly I'm not even sure if I could get away with posting example pictures of men in the same kind of clothing that many sexualized female characters are wearing, even though it's the same exact thing, only because of how conditioned we are to seeing women portrayed in sexualized outfits compared to men. Further viewing (super recommended):

Showing abs isn't objectification. Like, when people use Hawkeye as an example of a sexualized man, it goes to show that they don't really know what a sexualized man looks like. Meanwhile, there's arguably just as vocal a response (varying by depiction) to criticisms about the way female characters are portrayed.

My beef with this take is that it's sort of an "All Lives Matter" type of response. Nobody was arguing that men being objectified isn't bad, but by making that a key part of your point, you're saying it's just as big of a problem. Choosing to respond to @Othin with "but don't forget about all the sexism men deal with" is pretty dismissive of her point that the objectification overwhelmingly and disproportionately targets female characters.

I think at this point we might be arguing about somewhat different (but related) things-- in your case, what makes a character seemingly worthy of getting into the game, and in my case, the problem with how female characters are treated (by creators and players), on the whole. Even if the ratio of male to female characters present in the game was skewed drastically toward including more female characters, there's still a misogyny problem, which is based more on the quality of their presentation, rather than quantity. Earlier you used Frederick, Seth, and Gharnef as "sexy" as if the degree that those characters are made attractive (or just not monstrous like Gharnef was) is anywhere close to how the female cast is portrayed. I found it a rather absurd case, especially if that's your idea of objectified male characters.

Let me reiterate then; even if creators apply the exact same qualities when designing objectified male and female characters, the reactions are always going to be different because of how men and women are viewed and treated differently in the world. What's misogynistic is that when sexualization or objectification happen to women, many people don't even notice because it's omnipresent, and then when someone complains about it, other people respond with excuses like "well what do you expect, sex sells" or "I don't see the problem". When it happens to men, people make a big fuss because they're not conditioned to seeing it. The bottom line is that the "attractiveness" thing is disproportionately catering to straight male players, at the expense of everyone else, and to the detriment of the quality of female characters.

It's not about whether they're appealing or not, it's about how they're represented. That "objectification sells because one of the biggest things people care about is looks" is directly caused by people not respecting women enough. This isn't an equal problem between male and female character, it's not even close. It's so normalized with female characters that most people aren't even willing to consider that it is an issue, or that it's so widespread. Male objectification is not a rampant problem, certainly not in Fire Emblem. I suppose that's true, but as I see it, one side is trying to dismiss or downplay the other's argument and ignore their points, no matter how salient, responding with things like "both sides" fallacies

Does literally every criticism of the way female characters are treated need to be considered a "fucking cesspool of an argument"? Even if it was sparked by those dumb words doesn't diminish the significance of where the discussion went.

Nah man, the proportion of male characters being objectified is ridiculously small compared to how many female characters are, and in nowhere near as absurd with the degree that it's done. On top of that, there exists a societal power imbalance between men and women, which by default gives a different context to objectified women compared to objectified men. There are problems with many depictions of men in fiction, but being overtly sexualized and objectified is a massive outlier. Meanwhile, it's the norm for women.

I'm willing to bet he comes with Wrath, since Rutger is renowned for his ability to reach 100% crit rate, and that GHB units lately have come with desirable 5* exclusive skills

It also may suggest that certain other characters might not get Mythic status, but then I don't expect a ton of consistency from IS

Got 681 grails on hand for Rutger, and I'm guessing I should have about 1200 by the time he's added to the list of grail pulls. Now all I have to do is hope his art and voice acting aren't trash, and I'll be good to go

She did a great job on that, too We need some Kari Wahlgren in here and then we'll have all 4 of the main characters

I'm a Catapult fan, if only for how convenient it is to take out structures that block my path but are too far back to hit. Running Tactics Room 3, Catapult 3, Escape Ladder 3, and everything else just level 1

Well, there goes Idunn.

Lucina is probably the best one since many people struggle to anticipate how she moves and everyone runs Eir, so the flier effectiveness helps. Veronica is a good choice as well, but she's usually more for setting up someone else's kill or making an approach more challenging.

I look at it as taking the choice of accepting a minor loss of rewards (like what, 6 grails?) to spare yourself the stress and time sink of analyzing every map for the perfect solution. At 12,300 right now, and I'm ranked 46, but it'll drop soon I'm sure, especially since I set up a freebie Def win. Lots of people are doing it these days, which is really nice, and I think the more people do it, the more it'll catch on and spread.

First thing that comes to mind is something like Rival Domains/Grand Conquests, with the expanded map/team sizes, but ideally with more variety of objectives (which is something RD/GC would benefit from regardless). GC's region map being something that a decent number of players have influence over is another aspect that could serve as inspiration, but perhaps putting teams against an AI or something instead of other player teams.

If I could, I'd abandon my Def Fortress completely and devote all dew to Offense. I'd rather have an easier time in the part that I play while making it a little easier for everyone else, rather than making it suck more for both of us.

They're effectively a scam, the interest rates are so absurd that most people dig themselves deeper. I would never take one. Worth watching:

That little (manakete?) girl, could be a decent twist from the formula if something like that was done right

The precedent has been set! But yeah the alts have slowed down in that sense. It recently occurred to me that for months now, the TT units have all been seasonal alts, suggesting that we won't see many new characters in that same position (which would be nice for people who want to +10 them)

They're totally saving Apocalypse for cavalry Lilina alt

Somehow I missed this post, sorry! But yeah that's definitely a possibility, I mean having Roy Marth and Ike on the same banner seems suspiciously generous to me. There are other ways they could adjust it though, like reducing the regular 5*s or seasonals as well. Anyway, looking forward to seeing what the Binding Blade banner has (which'd be like Wednesday night). If Idunn doesn't appear on it, I'm super sure they're saving her for Mythic status (even if not this month).

What's your def map like? I could help look at ways to improve it. Also what are your offense teams like?

Always possible, though I think his chances are hurt if you consider the "god-like" descriptor. Does it mean power rivaling the gods, or worshiped as a god? Hard to say for sure with only 2 Mythics available, but Athos would fall into that nebulous "maybe" category whereas characters like Naga or Ashera meet the criteria without any ambiguity. For what it's worth, his in-game affinity was Anima, and this hero almost certainly won't be Anima, so I think there are a few too many things working against him at the moment. Somehow I skipped over your post, but yeah April will be Earth. It was possible to figure out even before Roy appeared since February's hero was lined up to be Fire, based on the seasons. I know a lot of people expect Micaiah as an eventual Dark Mythic, but I think she'll be April's hero as a Earth Legendary using a staff.