[Callan S.]

Ran across this - the first two images

http://www.gamingaswomen.com/posts/2012/03/dear-wizards-why-you-should-care-about-women-in-the-new-edition/

I'm not sure women (some women, anyway) actually understand the male gaze particularly much. Or don't atleast understand (assuming I'm a reflection of the majority of the male demographic) the majority of the male gaze demographic.

Yeah, there's some side boob there - but that woman if fucking scary!

If you saw either of them in a dark alley, what would you think?

Second image "RUN!"

First image "Oh, a cos player!"

And on the side boob, there's a 'physipole' place down the road from me where women apparently (behind the curtained front) don skimpy outfits - just with other women around. Because they like the glamour (to me it probably follows on from the belly dancing arts tradition, in such a way). Some women, not for the male gaze, like wearing form showing gear. And the woman in the second image - yeah, you might male gaze - and you might end up like a male praying mantis for doing so (with your head chewed off!).

Okay, some men (hopefully not many men, but possibly) just can't see strength in a woman - can't even see it even if a womans hand rested apon a blade punged into that mans chest cavity (some men are just so blinkered/so thick). But those same men wouldn't see strength in the first picture! Hell, even I see it as a cosplayer!

But I've spilt my evaluation before letting ya'll come to your own. So what do you think.

Oh, and I just comment on the first two images because I basically agree on the ones below - just male gaze stuff. What extra pisses me off is that Harleyquin is an anarchist psychopath...but she still shaves her armpits!?!?!? Fuck this shit! Well okay, you know what - it is possible she might care about it. It'd be worth talking with the artists/authors about it. But I'm guessing she has no armpit hair because they just don't draw that. In which case, bullshit on supposed anarchy - can't even have some hair under her f'n arm.

Now, having cast my Saajan summoning circle...I yoke him to this world/thread! >

[Meyna]

A woman's sexuality can be a source of power (you use the example of belly-dancing), but the problem arises when that concept is applied too much, and in places where it has no logical place being. In this case, Wizards is essentially saying "This is how we want players to picture a prototypical (in the psychological sense) female battle-mage," or whatever. The male battle-mage gets some practical garb, but let's make the female sacrifice some wardrobial practicality for the sake of tapping into her "sexual powers". Ditto for the female hunter, paladin, wizard, dragon-knight, etc. Sure, a person in battle would want to use whatever advantage they can, but having excessive female sexuality in the art sends an unattractive message.

[Wilshire]

Maybe the only message its sending is attractive 

[sciborg2]

Meyna pretty much covered my reply. When you have character images of women exposing a more than rational amount of skin in battle you're saying women gamers aren't important.

Not sure what else there is to discuss.

[Callan S.]

Well, we have a long history of people fighting bare skinned in our own RL history, right down to 'skyclad' - I'm not sure about the non rational part. Looks like an arrow or sword would punch right through eather characters gear. A bit of cloth is not somehow far more rational than bare skin.

But I suppose what I'll instead settle on is the vehemence in the phrase 'A world of no' pasted onto the second image.

You have cos players who dress up in show off-ey gear.

I would pay the argument that hey, these show off-ey people are a minority and maybe the majority gun for the look in the first picture. I'd think that's most likely true. So I'd pay the argument it's failing to really match the majority who want to use those books.

But the argument does not seem to be that it fails a majority, but that it's just wong somehow?

I even find it problematic that, despite how a (granted, a small demographic) of women can enjoy such a look, that anyone would say by highlighting that look it's saying women gamers aren't important. When such a claim itself actually treats certain demographics of women (sure, more the minority) as unimportant. As if women from those demographics have nothing to do with womanhood, so much so that such a look treats the only real women present as unimportant.

In the end I'd suspect the usual - a speck of genuine injustice (the main demographic doesn't want that picture) is elevated to the point of treating ones own tribe as being the only tribe. When there are many 'tribes' of women (I gave that physipole example as one).

So I'm left with the weaksauce argument, which neither cancels the argument, nor condones the extreme version of it. Never the most exciting type of argument to give! Too middle ground-ish!

[sciborg2]

You think women fighting in lingerie - while male counterparts wear more rational armor - is done to appeal to female gamers?

That some women like the erotic aspect of the character serving the male gaze does not mean they believe the illustrations are meant to cater to women. I don't think using cosplay as an example is actual proof of women feeling like they were being catered to.

Similarly, a company whose illustrations of minorities are only of cultists, foreign villains, and servants is a company not really interested in having non-white customers.

[Callan S.]

You think women fighting in lingerie - while male counterparts wear more rational armor - is done to appeal to female gamers?

Were at the red herring of 'rationality' (in regards to magic users attire) again. And murdering qualifiers while were at it.

At a certain point I would think you have no interest, Saajan, in knowing whether I agree you have read me right. Did you decide to not confirm if you've read me right (as if you know what I'm saying better than I do?), or slip into it?

I'll continue, but there isn't much point if you really don't care whether I'd agree you've read me right.

That some women like the erotic aspect of the character serving the male gaze does not mean they believe the illustrations are meant to cater to women. I don't think using cosplay as an example is actual proof of women feeling like they were being catered to.

The most charitably I can read this is if you were to run surveys, you would say the results that came back would be that not even a tiny demographic think the illustrations are meant to cater to women (even as a woman though the illustration on the left was supposed to cater to her) and that cosplayers would think the thing they cosplay was not meant to cater to them. Maybe it would be the case and there wouldn't even be a marginal demographic against that hypothesis. However, the front page of physipole has me harbouring doubts (heck even I don't like the witch they have on the front page at the moment!).

The uncharitable reading is a literal reading - you wont ask women if they think the illustration is meant to cater to women - you have decided what they believe. And you don't think cosplay is any kind of proof - okay, but you will leave it there and not actually ask them.

Going back to the charitable reading, do you think such a survey could come out with a minority demographic, but still a genuine demographic, who when speaking for themselves actually answer quite differently to what you'd expect? Or do you think it not even a slim chance but instead impossible?

Similarly, a company whose illustrations of minorities are only of cultists, foreign villains, and servants is a company not really interested in having non-white customers.

Goes beyond the scope of my investigation. They might use sweat shop labour somewhere along the line as well, but one thing at a time...

[Meyna]

When it comes to the companies profiting the most, the illustrators are drawing a style dictated by their higher-ups, who make those decisions based on what their marketing team tells them will make the most money. The question, really, is: why, in our culture, must depictions of female combatants (superheroes, mages, warriors, whatever) be sexualized in order for them to be the most popular/profitable? Sure, one could look into niche markets to find female characters where who they are has less to do with their looks and more to do with their skills and other parts of their personality, but it's disheartening to have to dig for these characters while they're overshadowed by their physically endowed counterparts. With male characters, sure, some of them are sexualized one way or the other; but, most of them get a few sentences of description, an illustration or two with modest yet unique features and wardrobe, and then they let their actions and personality speak for themselves.

One frustrating trope that comes to mind is that when there actually is a competent-yet-modest female character, attention is drawn to that fact as if in fascination. Whether this is commentary of our own culture on the part of the author, or a subconscious march in lock-step with that same culture, it still stinks

Long story short, picture 1 looks like cosplay and picture 2 looks like a serious warrior because of the feedback loop between our culture seeing them as such, and the producers of these fictional characters giving us what we want, and that situation is maybe undesirable.

[Madness]

Not sure how much longer this thread is going to last but if I'm going to keep reading, which I will because I'm interested in TSA dissection and your opinions all contribute to that immensely, I need to post something from an old TSA forumer, Mats, who brought up these points about questionable Bakker covers (ironically in the TSA related art thread, which I don't think gets plowed through at any time from the beginning).

That's fair enough. I suppose my concern is mainly that if Bakker-fans as a community can't even agree that something as overtly juvenile and sexist as that cover is, in fact, juvenile and sexist, then how can we properly engage with the alleged sexism in Bakker's works?

Fine. Rules:

-Don't depict women in stupid poses that emphasizes their sexuality to the detriment of everything else (fuck you, comics).

-Don't angle the shot in ways that blatantly pander to the male gaze.

-Don't white-wash. Ever.

-Don't excuse any of this shit by appealing to moral relativity just because you happen to like the cover in question.

-If you listen to a Finnish metal band, and it's not Reverend Bizarre, enjoy dying alone.

Oh, and if you ever shoot a docu and the cover of said docu is a tantalizing shot of some aboriginal leathery side-boob-action, I'd hazard most people would find that quite disturbing! :p

EDIT: I had a few things to respond to specifically but I think I'll wait it out.

To highlight what I've read;

two images (Callan)
appeals towards 'sexual attraction' make invalid (Meyna)
further, appeals towards sexual attraction negate 'female gamers' (Sci)
history & cosplay - the appeal towards sexual attraction is a reflection of (history) and embodied by (cosplay) a percentage of females (Callan)
claims opposite - females embracing and reproducing the appeal to sexual attraction don't do so to support the general depiction and the depiction is not rendered for females (Sci)
what distinguishes these qualifying categories/we don't know the demographic intentions (Callan)
description by social mechanism (good stuff, tickles my imagination)/contention: females embracing and reproducing the appeal to sexual attraction do so because it is both the expectation of the player population (male gamers comprising huge percentages) and because (we) society really believe the second image to be more powerful as we're conditioned so (Meyna)

However - in thoughts to your question, Meyna:

The question, really, is: why, in our culture, must depictions of female combatants (superheroes, mages, warriors, whatever) be sexualized in order for them to be the most popular/profitable?

- appeals towards sexual attraction work a percentage of the time.
- the existing consumer base is majority male.
- the possible consumer influx due to appeal to female (whom may or may not already view the masculine characters depicted as appealing towards sexual attraction) is not great enough to consider their market population.
- the loss of existing female costumer base is acceptable when compared to the sustained population over time.
- the fallout from concerned advocates is too easily appeased.

[Madness]

Hm... I so want to bump Bakker, Feminism, & Slavery but I figure this is more topical here.

I've been watching a bunch of documentaries over the past two days instead of... I think something about finishing some schoolwork...

But here: Killing Us Softly 4: Advertising’s Image of Women (2010).

[sciborg2]

further, appeals towards sexual attraction negate 'female gamers' (Sci)

claims opposite - females embracing and reproducing the appeal to sexual attraction don't do so to support the general depiction and the depiction is not rendered for females (Sci)

Thanks for the summaries Madness.

To clarify what I'm getting at, I think the dichotomy in how women vs men are depicted in D&D illustrations shows who marketing is trying to appeal to.

You don't see male characters exposing/accentuating abs/ass/cock in the way that a female will curiously have her navel or cleavage exposed when in full armor.

That some women find the characters appealing and want to dress up as them doesn't change the dichotomy. I also don't think we can garner the actual opinions of how these women feel about the issue simply by observing their cosplay.

Anyway I think Meyna makes good points and I like Mats' rules.

eta:

The article in the OP isn't very good by the way. The assumptions the author makes go from relying on a single interpretation (why DC comics didn't gain new readers) to just bizarre (Monte Cook's involvement means women won't be represented well?)

eta 2:

Monte Cook Games especially has a female lead editor who specifically talks about inclusion of minorities and LGBT in Cooks' Numenera setting.

[Callan S.]

When it comes to the companies profiting the most, the illustrators are drawing a style dictated by their higher-ups, who make those decisions based on what their marketing team tells them will make the most money. The question, really, is: why, in our culture, must depictions of female combatants (superheroes, mages, warriors, whatever) be sexualized in order for them to be the most popular/profitable? Sure, one could look into niche markets to find female characters where who they are has less to do with their looks and more to do with their skills and other parts of their personality, but it's disheartening to have to dig for these characters while they're overshadowed by their physically endowed counterparts. With male characters, sure, some of them are sexualized one way or the other; but, most of them get a few sentences of description, an illustration or two with modest yet unique features and wardrobe, and then they let their actions and personality speak for themselves.

One frustrating trope that comes to mind is that when there actually is a competent-yet-modest female character, attention is drawn to that fact as if in fascination. Whether this is commentary of our own culture on the part of the author, or a subconscious march in lock-step with that same culture, it still stinks

Long story short, picture 1 looks like cosplay and picture 2 looks like a serious warrior because of the feedback loop between our culture seeing them as such, and the producers of these fictional characters giving us what we want, and that situation is maybe undesirable.

How do you mean, 'giving us what we want', Meyna? This is how you make it seem you're not making your own preferential judgment. From what I understand, you don't want this - so how is this what 'we' want this? 'We' don't, not when you are included amongst the voices involved.

What I'm seeing here are two preferential judgments
1. Women cannot do adventure unless they have enlarged fitness indicators and show them.
2. Women cannot do adventure unless they have modest fitness indicators and are modest about showing them.

I agree that #1 is both problematic and largely perpetuated (for cash).

But as much as #2 is pushed into a corner, I see it as problematic as well.

Both of them are extremism.

Sure, I'd pay one wouldn't want to take any edge case/an inch one gives towards perhaps 5% of women adventurers possibly having enlarged fitness indicators and showing them and someone taking that a mile, increasing the 5% to 10%, then 20%, etc (because it's profitable and easy to do) to essentially go right back to #1. I pay that people exploit edge cases like that. So anyone being very wary of adding edge cases/exceptions like that, I can undersand that entirely.

But on the other hand who has interest in dogma? And #2 is dogma as much as #1 is. Worse, the practitioners of #1 are actually more lax in their dogma, having an occasional modest female adventurer on their retinue. I suspect currently that anyone supporting #2 would never be so lax in their dogmatic practice.

[Callan S.]

Mike

history & cosplay - the appeal towards sexual attraction is a reflection of (history) and embodied by (cosplay) a percentage of females (Callan)

The history part - I never said that.


Saajan,

I also don't think we can garner the actual opinions of how these women feel about the issue simply by observing their cosplay.

No. You aren't just doubting my claim - you were engaging in a claim of your own and weren't engaging in any doubt upon it.

Framing it as if you were just doubting my observation and no more than that - I find it disengenuous and it even seems a betrayal of the claims you did actually make.

Beyond that, okay, it's better to ask (with a broad sample size) than to just observe. I thought I had already agreed with that.



And on Mat's rules: They fully embrace being the sole interpreter. That's what makes them so comfy - one only imagines them being used in precisely the way oneself would use them. But then again even law writers are prone to such oversight. And they get paid for their job, unlike us.

[sciborg2]

Framing it as if you were just doubting my observation and no more than that - I find it disingenuous and it even seems a betrayal of the claims you did actually make.

This is starting to feel like elaborate trolling.

You called me out in your OP to post in this thread and now you're finding ways to get offended after I've replied.

[Meyna]

However - in thoughts to your question, Meyna:

The question, really, is: why, in our culture, must depictions of female combatants (superheroes, mages, warriors, whatever) be sexualized in order for them to be the most popular/profitable?

- appeals towards sexual attraction work a percentage of the time.
- the existing consumer base is majority male.
- the possible consumer influx due to appeal to female (whom may or may not already view the masculine characters depicted as appealing towards sexual attraction) is not great enough to consider their market population.
- the loss of existing female costumer base is acceptable when compared to the sustained population over time.
- the fallout from concerned advocates is too easily appeased.

Yes, agreed on all counts. My issue is that our culture results in those conclusions to begin with. I always hesitate to declare a thesis stating that society is wrong and should change, because the process of amending a culture is a lesson in futility (or luck). Unless I'm a Dunyain, there is no telling whether my micro-effort will affect macro-change in a way that I intended, or have the opposite effect (or not change anything at all, which is the likely statistical outcome).

When it comes to the companies profiting the most, the illustrators are drawing a style dictated by their higher-ups, who make those decisions based on what their marketing team tells them will make the most money. The question, really, is: why, in our culture, must depictions of female combatants (superheroes, mages, warriors, whatever) be sexualized in order for them to be the most popular/profitable? Sure, one could look into niche markets to find female characters where who they are has less to do with their looks and more to do with their skills and other parts of their personality, but it's disheartening to have to dig for these characters while they're overshadowed by their physically endowed counterparts. With male characters, sure, some of them are sexualized one way or the other; but, most of them get a few sentences of description, an illustration or two with modest yet unique features and wardrobe, and then they let their actions and personality speak for themselves.

One frustrating trope that comes to mind is that when there actually is a competent-yet-modest female character, attention is drawn to that fact as if in fascination. Whether this is commentary of our own culture on the part of the author, or a subconscious march in lock-step with that same culture, it still stinks

Long story short, picture 1 looks like cosplay and picture 2 looks like a serious warrior because of the feedback loop between our culture seeing them as such, and the producers of these fictional characters giving us what we want, and that situation is maybe undesirable.

How do you mean, 'giving us what we want', Meyna? This is how you make it seem you're not making your own preferential judgment. From what I understand, you don't want this - so how is this what 'we' want this? 'We' don't, not when you are included amongst the voices involved.

What I'm seeing here are two preferential judgments
1. Women cannot do adventure unless they have enlarged fitness indicators and show them.
2. Women cannot do adventure unless they have modest fitness indicators and are modest about showing them.

I agree that #1 is both problematic and largely perpetuated (for cash).

But as much as #2 is pushed into a corner, I see it as problematic as well.

Both of them are extremism.

Sure, I'd pay one wouldn't want to take any edge case/an inch one gives towards perhaps 5% of women adventurers possibly having enlarged fitness indicators and showing them and someone taking that a mile, increasing the 5% to 10%, then 20%, etc (because it's profitable and easy to do) to essentially go right back to #1. I pay that people exploit edge cases like that. So anyone being very wary of adding edge cases/exceptions like that, I can undersand that entirely.

But on the other hand who has interest in dogma? And #2 is dogma as much as #1 is. Worse, the practitioners of #1 are actually more lax in their dogma, having an occasional modest female adventurer on their retinue. I suspect currently that anyone supporting #2 would never be so lax in their dogmatic practice.

By "we," I meant the fanbase that is being catered to, and, equally, the culture that conditions the fanbase to respond so strongly to that type of content to begin with. That was a problematic use of words on my part. Sorry!

Your 2 example above is indeed more dogmatic because those following 2 are, whether they know it or not, striving to subvert the cultural preference towards 1, so they need to be stringent. Those following your example 1 have a bit more freedom so long as they follow the underlying formula for success. What I see as negative lies not in whether a particular writer/artist/company chooses to go with 1 or 2, but that our culture rewards those who go with option 1.

Something I've just thought of but can't think of examples right now: I'd like to compare the average descriptions/depictions of male fantasy/adventurer human/near-human characters to the descriptions/depictions of female characters of equivalent role but who happen to be either humanoid but far enough away so as not to be able to relate to them, or bestial/mythical races and see how the general characteristics of those two sets of descriptions and depictions align. I would think they would line up pretty well.