>>719740832
uh anon? that appears to be fetishizing material of a female character. That is NOT OKAY. We need to be better men, and see our roles play in the patriarchical machine around us and it's enforcement of harmful beauty stereotypes.

>>718949618
>I don't believe the infamously bad character designs come from wokeness but from the confused art design.

They're following feminist design principles to a tee, which are all negative critiques like all of leftism. Feminists have been bitching about media since the 80s, saying it's sexist, mysognistic, and such. Look "the male gaze" for instance. These design critiques are acutally being implimented and it's disasterous.

>>717214854
>Why are leftroids like this?

The MALE GAZE
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_gaze

>>717162852
>>717162826
oh and btw, these really are just feminist theories put into place that already took hold in literature departments in the 90s. All this shit is available on Wikipedia, but if you suggest it's being put into place it's a conspiracy.

You can catch them in their own logic though by saying:

1. Are these in theory good ideas?
2. If they are, then it's the moral duty to impliment them right?
3. There are past clips saying the male gaze is a problem and should be eliminated. Are the right or wrong? Have their ideas been implimented yet?

They have to say eliminating the Male Gaze is a moral good, and that it SHOULD be implimented. Having them to defend that it also somehow hasn't been implimented yet, even though everyone in power seemingly agrees it should be, doesn't make any sense.