They can complain about phrasing all they like but there's no denying that they basically want similar changes to character design as fundies and prudes do. Doesn't matter if you arrived at that conclusion through different means, you can't help ending up on the same side.
You'd think they'd take allies wherever they can get them!
I don't know if it's entirely fair, to be honest, being tactful and conservative is not always the same thing. The problem I think is that the notion of "objectification" (or "male gaze", etc) is not exactly the most concrete of things and you end up with byzantine arguments where sexy thing A is bad but quasi-identical sexy thing B is OK because reasons. Sometimes you can make a good argument about context, intent or presentation but often you can't (and I suspect it's probably why GAFEra was so fond of labeling people and creators to serve as an ersatz to assume intents) because you don't have enough information or they're ambiguous.
Yeah I agree, there's room for some variation there. Reset might say cleavage is ok while conservatives want it covered up by a crucifix necklace. But I think if the company showed two character designs, one dressed a little more conservatively (seriously a normal use of the word in this context), they would find themselves preferring the same design as conservatives.
I mean if they want to pick a different word, what are some examples of feminist clothing that are decidedly not conservative?
The problem is that while it's ok for an empowered woman to wear whatever she wants defiantly, and feel sexy, they don't want to allow character designers to use that clothing, because the woman is fictitious and not choosing anything - the designer can say she's empowered and chose this for herself, but that doesn't mean anything. It was still "made for the male gaze."
