"This is all very interesting stuff... but I still think there should be more scantily clad females :)"


Lost Omens Campaign Setting General Discussion

301 to 350 of 564 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>

Gailbraithe wrote:
roguerouge wrote:
I get that you're angry too.

Dude, if I'm angry, it's at your attempts to make me guilty about blowing off someone who gave me and everyone else here the kiss-off before we even showed up. I don't like it when people try to manipulate me with feelings of guilt when they (or their friend) is in the wrong.

roguerouge wrote:
I guess I really can't see why people look at her post in isolation...To me, this thread reads like a bunch of crude bullies wolf-whistling until they get called on it. Then, the new girl mouths off, sparking nastier comments from the bullies. And, strangely, everyone's obsessed with how uppity and rude the new girl is.
Maybe because her post gave EVERYBODY on this forum and paizo the company in particular the kiss off on account of Krome, Set and like two others being jack-asses about their opinions. You conveniently ignore that in your summation.

Clarify, please. I've taken the effort to go back to her original posts and show that she specifically limited her post to the persons she was responding to, not all men. And, again, I'd include the provocation of the OP (it was deliberate, as the OP said) and everyone who played along.

'Cause if you're referring to this:

krissbeth wrote:

Some people's idea of "fantasy" is not being objectified.

I love the men in the thread being defensive and telling women that they shouldn't be offended. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

Representations of my sex are reduced to decorative trinkets in much of "fantasy" gaming. f@## yeah, that makes it less fun and less enjoyable to this consumer. Women have every right to be angry about it. Become a historically shat on demographic and maybe you'll understand. Educate yourself in women's studies and maybe you'll understand. Clearly, few of you do.

That's a direct response to Emperor 7 (for the first line) and a general response to Set (who had stated that "some" of those taking an opposing stance are "against sex" and that that's because "they are doing it wrong"), and to Krome (who suggested that anyone who disagreed with him was mentally ill). Yet, no one who agreed with Set or Krome's position called them on their tactics.

I'm, in fact, still waiting. Everyone seems to believe that what Krome said somehow doesn't count.

krissbeth wrote:

You must understand that a lot of my ire is also because the "zomg hot chicks!" reaction is SO in line with the mouth-breathing-basement-dwelling-troglodyte gamer stereotype that many try to defy. *shudder*

It's like, "Way to make us all look like desperate, sex-starved nerds. a@&~@%!s."

At least, that's how it comes across to this female. And her sisters. And most of her female friends...

If that's what you're referring to, it sparked a long list of respectful responses, including from Set and Emperor 7.

If you're referring to this:

krissbeth wrote:
Funny. People said the same thing about the First Wave and Women's Suffrage.

She then followed up with by quoting and praising Chris Mortika's post. Those two led to a number of respectful posts agreeing and disagreeing with her stance. Then Emperor 7 asked her if she was a troll.

She said that she wasn't and was discouraged and then Lilith and Emperor 7 agreed that this thread was not representative of the community.

Then DeadDMWalking posted asking why she hadn't put forward her own position, when she clearly had on page 4. Then you had your respectful post. Then there was the snarky but legitimate post from Sutekeh the Destroyer.

Then Aubrey called her a puritan and a troll for refusing to respond to posts... between her last post on Saturday night and 5 AM on Monday.

Then Set declared her successfully driven away because she hadn't responded between Saturday night and 9 AM on a Monday. He also called her a little "name-caller" (ironic) and started the meme that she was simply a visiting troll and not a potential new customer.

So, as far as I can see, her posts sparked an immediate return response that was largely positive to the fostering of a healthy debate based on the posts that followed it immediately afterwards. Then Aubrey and Set decided that she was too new to have these positions legitimately and labeled her a troll due to being insufficiently responsive to their questions on Saturday night and Sunday.

So. Tell me where I'm going wrong.


Heathansson wrote:


... Meanwhile, DeadDMWalking said some things that are actually worth discussing. I'm not singling him out, I'm sure somebody else actually made a cogent point on this thread in between all the barbs of righteous indignation.

Okay. Respond to the point I made, three times, on the lack of parity in the hyper-sexualized imagery of males vs. females in Paizo's Gamemastery and Pathfinder's lines. I cited specific images and agreed that one they at least attempted to justify and that Sajan was a counter-point. I'll work on your request while you work on mine. Deal? Which one from him/her did you find compelling?

I'd also like to point out that I argued for Aubrey's and Trollman's and the other guy's rights to have their voices heard when the late unpleasantness occurred during the Alpha phase of PfRPG. Not sure why that seems relevant, but it seems to be in this thread. I believed in Aubrey's right to counter-speech and hopefully he understands mine.

Liberty's Edge

Fine. Tell me if it works.

Liberty's Edge

roguerouge wrote:
Clarify, please. I've taken the effort to go back to her original posts and show that she specifically limited her post to the persons she was responding to, not all men. And, again, I'd include the provocation of the OP (it was deliberate, as the OP said) and everyone who played along.

"I can positively say that this thread has immediately turned me off to these forums as well."

That was the comment that provoke a response from me. That was the comment that convinced me that krissbeth wasn't worth going to bat for, or listening to, or giving a rat's ass about.

Seriously, if this thread turned her off the entire paizo community, and the company the runs them, screw her. Don't let the door hit ya where the good lord split ya, sayonara and goodybye.


roguerouge wrote:


... on the lack of parity in the hyper-sexualized imagery of males vs. females in Paizo's Gamemastery and Pathfinder's lines.

You've said some interesting things, some of which I agree with, but what I'm really wondering is, WHY should men and women be sexualized equally? And I ask this question in total seriousness. There are two sexes (genders anyone) and they ARE different and furthermore they are not homogeneous within themselves. Now I'm not saying I disagree with parity being ideal which may be due to my upbringing and academic background, but when I step back and look at the big picture of sex and sexuality and especially what I perceive to be big differences between sexes, I just can't find a reason why there shouldn't be more sexualized imagery of women in both my culture in general and in my fantasy gaming rulebooks - and when I say shouldn't I'm taking a big step away from a reality where women are sexualized more and it's not just men doing the sexualizing, and it's not just men the sexualization is appealing to.

Does everything have to be balanced out neatly?


So, are we gettin' more boobies or not? <Big (ebil) Grin>

Seriously, anyone who is offended by stuff like this should take a walk back in the 70's, with guys like Frazetta and Vallejo doing nearly every, single cover, not to mention the completely over-the-top Gor series of novels (wherein women were just property).

Trust me, "you've come a long way, baby". ;)

And my male friends have never made me blush, but some of those younger women my ex-wife works with have made me walk out of the room, it was so... dirty (and I'm certainly no prude).

Aarontendo wrote:
Now I'm gonna request that Paizo bring up their representation of Asian women in their pictures.

Here Here!!!

I second this motion! I am sickened by Paizo's unfair display of Caucasian women and insist that the next 50-60 iconics they do are all "women of color".

<wink wink> (in case anyone didn't notice the tongue planted firmly in my cheek)


Slinks in around the landmines...

I was following this thread very regularly for a while and found it to be tongue-in-cheek, no exploitive. Things written and posted on the internet, or in any written forum often require context, attitude and representative positions on related topics in order to establish an actual understanding of what the writer actually meant by what was written.

That being said, there are some people that have said some rather overly snarky comments here.

I would also like to add that this is not a thread that is representative of this community, but I would also like to reiterate something mentioned earlier.

The women's movements of the past/current/whatever have all succeeded or failed based on one thing and one thing only. Guess what? Those women who lead the movements realized that the audience they had to change wasn't men, but women. No matter how well educated or knowledgeable, there is no woman on the planet who can understand more than a certain portion of the male psyche. Vice versa for men understanding women. I know that psychologists have been telling us for a while now that there are not chemical differences between boys and girls and their measured responses to stimuli...this has recently been proved absolutely incorrect. There are chemical differences between boys and girls, in body chemistry, neurotransmitters, etc.

Deny it all you want, if enough women talk to their significant others, things start to change. Its just a question of getting enough women to care. Men, for the most part don't. Men tend to gather in cliques or packs of specific friends, women tend to form far-reaching communities amongst themselves, in my experience.

Is there any coincidence that leading by example amongst women is the way to effectively lead a women's movement? It doesn't help that movement when the prevailing feminine attitude recently is the attitude of the Supermodel.
When women decide to wear jeans that nearly fall off...their not wearing it for me, they are wearing it out of a sense of feminine competition. At least that how it appears, again, I am male, I can't understand women, I can only make educated guesses.

Krissbeth, you could do a great deal of good for your name if you were to return and answer some select questions that certain posters have put to you.

RogueRouge, I think you would be better served to make a point rather than to just repost others comments. I am not saying this to be rude, this is actual advice. If you were to make a more complete point, without waiting for someone else to respond, you would stand a better chance for being your friends advocate.

Yasha

Liberty's Edge

My understanding of the thread thus far:

1) The OP takes a quote from a thread discussing portraying a variety of races in the artwork. The quote comes from Krome, where in this thread the comment was firmly tongue in cheek. The OP suggests that this would be a good idea (also with tongue in cheek).

2) Page 1 has three comments that are less than totally off-the wall humor. One of the more serious posts is from roguerogue responding to Sir Urza's request to have more 'heroines with the curves of wonder woman wearing armor that couldn't possibly protect her from anything yet leaves us guys drooling anyway'.

3) Krome has a lot to say on Page 3. While some might consider his opinion 'outdated', he does have a lot of good points buried in there. Despite a misunderstanding where he did not suggest bondage and questions how it got there, we also have mostly civil discourse except ofr this bombshell:

Krissbeth wrote:


Set wrote:
Yeah, wouldn't want people to think that gamer men are like *every other straight man on the planet, and like boobies.*

I think "juvenile" and "pathetic" are the messages being sent, actually.

Then again, I'm not one for overt sexual objectification in my hobbies.

The implication here is that if you are a man and like 'boobies' you are 'juvenile' and 'pathetic'. The only comment is from Kruleaid asking if this refers to all men. While Krissbeth assures us it does not, again, the implication is that all men who like 'boobies' fall into this category, and nothing to the contrary is offered.

4) The discussion continues civilly as the conversation turns to whether or not a woman can be portrayed in a particular way without objectification. This is also where I join in the conversation. Krissbeth has a comment that may be snooty, but people are generally granting her the point or seeking clarification. People are apologizing for getting hot... Nothing too much to worry about.

5) The conversation continues rather civilly, with roguerogue asking if anyone can see why the humor might be offensive. I chime in with how serious I'm taking the conversation, and offer some examples of 'parity' in depictions of men and women that roguerogue basically grants me (though it is certainly true that there could be more within the Pathfinder line specifically). Then, pretty much out of nowhere, we get this:

Krissbeth wrote:


Some people's idea of "fantasy" is not being objectified.

I love the men in the thread being defensive and telling women that they shouldn't be offended. Congratulations on being part of the problem.

Representations of my sex are reduced to decorative trinkets in much of "fantasy" gaming. f@## yeah, that makes it less fun and less enjoyable to this consumer. Women have every right to be angry about it. Become a historically shat on demographic and maybe you'll understand. Educate yourself in women's studies and maybe you'll understand. Clearly, few of you do.

This fails to distinguish which men are the problem, and can be considered an attack against men in general. There may be a legitimate complaint, but this isn't the way to present it. And in order to understand it, I'm supposed to become a historically shat on demographic? Doesn't sound particularly progressive. However, I have not yet seen the clarification of what is acceptable. Show women warriors as warriors. Since there are many types of women warriors (and some indeed did fight nude or near nude) this is a little puzzling as to what is acceptable. Of course, I've maintained that each character should be shown in garb appropriate to their career, but I am advocating making sure there are women whose garb is attractive when situated to their role. And that can be anything. A nymph here or a dryad there instead of a warrior in every picture is fine by me.... But I digress... After failing to provide much clarification we get another insule and we move on to the next page.

6) The debate continues over whether depictions of women are sexist or not, and how women's studies seem to be of two minds. We try to hash out what objectification entails, but Krissbeth is unable or unwilling to continue at this point. That makes it a little one-sided.

7) The page is getting back to being civil, when roguerogue jumps in to defend Krissbeth and accuse others of leveling personal attacks. Several people try to say that isn't the case. Then some more jump in and say that while there were no personal attacks, she will not be missed.

And that pretty much catches up to the last couple of hours.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

MarkusTay wrote:
(in case anyone didn't notice the tongue planted firmly in my cheek)

I noticed. Whose tongue is that by the way? Spit it out boy. Don't talk with your mouth full.

Scarab Sages

I'm waiting for Gary to step in on this one, things are getting out of hand.

Roguerouge (and by extension, Krissbeth): I am on your side. It is a touchy subject, and I understand the need to defend yourselves on the issue. But at this point, it might just be stirring up bad feelings for everybody. I really think we are past convincing anyone of anything. As someone who has a friend who seems to enjoy portraying the crude, overly-sexual male, I am frequently calling his bluff in public or asking him to stop. Because really, there is a difference between enjoying a woman's body and feeling the need to cat-call and overtly demonstrate sexual behaviour in social situations.

To the other posters in debate with them: I ducked out of this thread for a while because I had nothing further to say, but I really feel that Krissbeth was making some valid points at first, and maybe as a new poster misinterpreted some others or said things in an unexpected way. For everyone to come down on her so hard, despite a sequence of fairly intelligent posts, is a little unfair. I get the feeling you are saying it is okay to demand attractive woman as artwork which all readers must look at, but not okay for a woman to defend her point of view on the matter (regardless of any hostility, real or imagined).

As a final thought:

ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL AND NOT MY ACTUAL OPINION

Imaginary thread title to illustrate my point wrote:


What if this thread title was "this is all very interesting stuff...but I still think there are too many ethnic people :)"?

This smily face does not forgive that thread, nor should it this one. If you stop to think about the ramifications of such an imaginary thread, you might start to understand how Krissbeth and other women might feel.


I think one of the reasons that so many people are getting so worked up over this is one issue in particular. How can there be such vitriol on both sides of the arguement here when society as a whole doesn't give a damn? Women dress as they want. I don't think there are that many places in the US where women are told what to wear anymore. Especially once they are adults. Just the same there are plenty of women who choose to be strippers or porn starlets (men too). Who are we to tell them that what they are doing is degrading themselves! What gall they have! (sarcasm)

I will admit to having a serious issue with people who become outraged on the behalf of people who are not even outraged. The ACLU does this alot.

While I do believe empowerment of the female is the right way to handle things, there is the societal pressure to tell us what things are attractive.
Hip-hugger jeans? I don't like them. I don't need to see 3" of a woman's thong in the back. WTF?! Can these women (even 11-12 year old...egads!) wear this stuff? Sure. Thats their right. No one has a right to tell them otherwise, not even someone claiming they are objectifying themselves.

Or for men, the poured on jeans (ala the Cowboy jeans). Thanks for sharing, gents! (sarcasm) Do I really care, not in the least.

I am trying to understand what the real issue is here? Objectifying of women? Lets first talk to the women who promote such objectification before turning our sights to the passive observer (even if that observer is taking a gander...).

Sure, there are men that promote such things, the porn industry for one, but then again, their business is defined by what the market wants for such products. So the societal image again intrudes into things.
If there is one thing about this subject that history teaches us, is that different generations and eras change these values more effectively than does all the pontificating in the world. View change, but that takes time.

Liberty's Edge

Jal Dorak wrote:

As a final thought:

ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL AND NOT MY ACTUAL OPINION

Imaginary thread title to illustrate my point wrote:


What if this thread title was "this is all very interesting stuff...but I still think there are too many ethnic people :)"?
This smily face does not forgive that thread, nor should it this one. If you stop to think about the ramifications of such an imaginary thread, you might start to understand how Krissbeth and other women might feel.

At the heart of this entirely hypothetical thought that is not your actual opinion (I'd disown it too) is a hidden assumption that I find extremely suspect. That assumption is best expressed as analogy, as it is a false analogy that underlies this argument (which is not your actual opinion):

Liking scantily clad women:Sexism::Disliking Minorities:Racism

To which I can think of several appropriate responses, but I'll go with "Wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

People who don't like people of color are not even remotely comparable to people who like scantily clad women. There are many similarities between racism and sexism, but they are not interchangeable, and you can't just run around replacing one with the other willy-nilly.

Also, you're basically saying that liking sexy women is sexist, aren't you?

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Jal Dorak wrote:
To the other posters in debate with them:

You really want to divide the thread into two like that?

Jal Dorak wrote:
I get the feeling you are saying it is okay to demand attractive woman as artwork

I'll bite. Yep. I'm saying that male readers can say that they want to spend their money on magazines wiith sexy women in them and won't spend it on Pathfinder unless it has sexy women in it. Personally, I'd buy Maxim or FM or whatever those magazines are called if I wanted that. I don't read Pathfinder for the hotties. I read it for the great world and incredible stories.

Jal Dorak wrote:
... which all readers must look at,

No. I stop short at tying other readers to chairs and propping their eyes open with toothpicks .... Don't we have a Clockwork Orange thread already somewhere?

Jal Dorak wrote:
but not okay for a woman to defend her point of view on the matter (regardless of any hostility, real or imagined).

Nope. Absolutely it is okay for her to defend her point of view. I wish she had.

We seem to be living in a culture where if I say "I don't like this" people assume I'm going to try to stop them from seeing that. Krissbeth gave her opinion about what she likes in Pathfinder. Other people gave theirs. Cool.

Scarab Sages

Gailbraithe wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:

As a final thought:

ENTIRELY HYPOTHETICAL AND NOT MY ACTUAL OPINION

Imaginary thread title to illustrate my point wrote:


What if this thread title was "this is all very interesting stuff...but I still think there are too many ethnic people :)"?
This smily face does not forgive that thread, nor should it this one. If you stop to think about the ramifications of such an imaginary thread, you might start to understand how Krissbeth and other women might feel.

At the heart of this entirely hypothetical thought that is not your actual opinion (I'd disown it too) is a hidden assumption that I find extremely suspect. That assumption is best expressed as analogy, as it is a false analogy that underlies this argument (which is not your actual opinion):

Liking scantily clad women:Sexism::Disliking Minorities:Racism

To which I can think of several appropriate responses, but I'll go with "Wha'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?"

People who don't like people of color are not even remotely comparable to people who like scantily clad women. There are many similarities between racism and sexism, but they are not interchangeable, and you can't just run around replacing one with the other willy-nilly.

Also, you're basically saying that liking sexy women is sexist, aren't you?

I did not directly compare sexism to racism (and that point is debatable anyway), only the notion of an offensive thread that some people are arguing is innocuous. The point of my hypothetical thread was not the content, but the offensiveness of such a statement to certain people, and the fallacious belief that adding a smily face to the end of it makes it okay. Both statements are equally contentious, for different reasons to different people, but you don't see that so obviously my attempt failed.

The problem is that the thread title is not "I like women", it is "I want to see more scantily clad women." See the difference?

Scarab Sages

Tarren Dei wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
To the other posters in debate with them:

You really want to divide the thread into two like that?

Jal Dorak wrote:
I get the feeling you are saying it is okay to demand attractive woman as artwork

I'll bite. Yep. I'm saying that male readers can say that they want to spend their money on magazines wiith sexy women in them and won't spend it on Pathfinder unless it has sexy women in it. Personally, I'd buy Maxim or FM or whatever those magazines are called if I wanted that. I don't read Pathfinder for the hotties. I read it for the great world and incredible stories.

Jal Dorak wrote:
... which all readers must look at,

No. I stop short at tying other readers to chairs and propping their eyes open with toothpicks .... Don't we have a Clockwork Orange thread already somewhere?

Jal Dorak wrote:
but not okay for a woman to defend her point of view on the matter (regardless of any hostility, real or imagined).

Nope. Absolutely it is okay for her to defend her point of view. I wish she had.

We seem to be living in a culture where if I say "I don't like this" people assume I'm going to try to stop them from seeing that. Krissbeth gave her opinion about what she likes in Pathfinder. Other people gave theirs. Cool.

I didn't divide the thread in two, I divided it in many parts: those with Kissbeth, those against Kissbeth, those ignoring the conversation, those trying to stay neutral, and probably more. But I only addressed two groups because they are the ones arguing. You don't seem to be in the camp that was arguing against Kissbeth herself (not her ideas) and so I hope that my post didn't seem targeted at you, if so I apologize. As you said, you express an opinion but disagree with others, that is fine.

You are saying you want scantily clad women. A number of people have said they find it offensive. I won't get into Kissbeth's lack of response to this issue, as I am not her. However, I will say that she has been singled out with some rather indignant posts for stating her opinion, which had merit. I wish the debate had stopped at two sides expressing an opinion, but a few posters decided to kick Kissbeth to the curb.

Liberty's Edge

Jal Dorak wrote:
I did not directly compare sexism to racism (and that point is debatable anyway), only the notion of an offensive thread that some people are arguing is innocuous.

No, that's not what you did. You made a direct comparison, claiming that the "I want to see more scantily clad women." is offensive in the same way that "I want to see less people of color." is.

Jal Dorak wrote:
The point of my hypothetical thread was not the content, but the offensiveness of such a statement to certain people, and the fallacious belief that adding a smily face to the end of it makes it okay. Both statements are equally contentious, for different reasons to different people, but you don't see that so obviously my attempt failed.

See, but the thing is, both statements aren't equally contentious. Both statements are contentious, but they are contentious for different reasons and to different people. That means they are not equally contentious. To be equally contentious, they would have to both be contentious to the same group of people For example, the terms "fireman" and "policeman" are equally contentious. They are contentious to same people for the same reasons.

To put a fine point on it, your argument would have us believe that the titling a thread "I think nazis suck." would be equally contentious as posting a thread titled "I think democrats suck." This is obviously an absurd conclusion, so your argument must be flawed.

Jal Dorak wrote:
The problem is that the thread title is not "I like women", it is "I want to see more scantily clad women." See the difference?

Yeah, I see the difference. But you still haven't actually explained why it's not okay for some guys to want to see some scantily clad action interspersed in the art.


Jal Dorak wrote:
I did not directly compare sexism to racism (and that point is debatable anyway), only the notion of an offensive thread that some people are arguing is innocuous.

Maybe this wasn't your intent. What you communicated was the two phrases were equivalent.

Jal Dorak wrote:
The point of my hypothetical thread was not the content, but the offensiveness of such a statement to certain people, and the fallacious belief that adding a smily face to the end of it makes it okay. Both statements are equally contentious, for different reasons to different people, but you don't see that so obviously my attempt failed.

The difference is that not all women find the idea that men like to see scantily clad women offensive. I see more women at the beach wearing bikinis than summer dresses or bathrobes, many of them never get in the water.

It's more on the order of saying I want to see more of Sajan's rippling abs, and more dudes in loincloths ;)

Which incidentally was said on this thread... and incidentally RogueRogue echoed the sentiment. Saying this thread was offensive from the start is a bit disingeneous considering roguerogue was joining in the jokes. Here is her first post on the thread:

roguerouge wrote:
DarkWhite wrote:
C'mon, guys. What we really need are more scantily clad MALES! I mean Sajan the Monk iconic is a step in the right direction, but where are the cod-piece wearing Gladiators, the half-Orc Barbarians in wolf-skin loin-cloths, the leather-fetish Executioners, the Mwangi Halfling warriors in vine-leaf skirts? You're all with me on this, aren't you, guys? ... guys???
I'm right behind you...

Not "Hey guys this is a bit dehumanizing.", isn't it a little late for her to claim that this whole topic is offensive? This is all a subjective thing and equating it to making racist statements is way off base.

Scarab Sages

Dennis da Ogre wrote:


Maybe this wasn't your intent. What you communicated was the two phrases were equivalent.

I apologize for the miscommunication of intent. But I think if you really read everything I wrote, it is fairly clear I was talking about Krissbeth's feelings and how a person might feel after hearing a rascist statement.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:


The difference is that not all women find the idea that men like to see scantily clad women offensive.

It's more on the order of saying I want to see more of Sajan's rippling abs, and more dudes in loincloths ;)

But some do, very much as passionately as people of color get upset at racism. Different problem, similar effect on people.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:

Which incidentally was said on this thread... and incidentally RogueRogue echoed the sentiment. Saying this thread was offensive from the start is a bit disingeneous considering roguerogue was joining in the jokes. Here is her first post on the thread:

...snip...

Not "Hey guys this is a bit dehumanizing.", isn't it a little late for her to claim that this whole topic is offensive?

I'm not in a position to comment on why roguerouge said those things.

Dennis da Ogre wrote:
This is all a subjective thing and equating it to making racist statements is way off base.

Again, I am not equating them in terms of what they mean historically. But in terms of how important they are as issues, they are equally important. Being from Canada, there might be a bit of cultural bias at work in our conversation, so I should acknowledge that.

I want to make this clear: sexism is a serious problem. Sexism affects everybody, male and female, in different ways in different cultures.

To some people, sexism has more of an impact than racism. And on that level, the people on this thread who are dismissing sexism need to realize the impact of their statements. That is why I hypothesized the thread title I used - not for the cause, but for the effect sexism has on people.

The Exchange

roguerouge wrote:

People have been making a lot of unsourced claims about why krissbeth's posts are the way they are. I have no idea what her intentions are. But looking back at the thread makes it pretty clear why she got angry and why she had a right to be.

I took only from the first two pages, the pages that set the tone. Jal Dvorak, Dark White, I, R_Chance, Krissbeth, and Chris Mortika all kept being told that we had no sense of humor because we couldn't see the funny here. Quoting nine posts and the OP is hardly an unfair way to show the mean-spiritedness of the original posters' "humor."

Then following that up with Set's post and the objected-to response is about as neutral as you're going to get.

Just because you don't see it as funny isn't reall the point - actually, I found it pretty puerile too and didn't start posting here until after krissbeth arrived. But on the other hand, they were having fun and didn't seem to be hurting anyone, and (so far as I can tell) had their tongues firmly in their cheeks. Or is it not OK to joke about political correctness?

Krissbeth unfortunately muddied the waters with her two arguments (which Tarren Dei teased out) with one being perfectly reasonable (some of the gear the women wear is not sensible) and the other imflammatory (all men who like breasts are perverts - OK, not what she said, but a strong implication). But the big problem is her flouncing on and then flouncing off, refusing to engage and then declaring that we were all too immature for her. Even if she is your friend, she didn't conduct herself well, and seemed to have problems engaging with people asking her to clarify or who disagreed with her. She wasn't very polite, basically.

Was she justified in her views? Well, various women have come on here and said they weren't very bothered, but it's a personal thing at the end of the day. Coming in at the end of the joke, and missing the context (the original joke is actually about tokenism and political correctness in Pathfinder - I should know, I wrote it, NOT Krome (damn OP, got it wrong grumble grumble...)) probably didn't help. But in the end, if you engage, you can probably say pretty much anything here and get away with it. She didn't do that. I'm not sure you leaping to her defence either really helps - is she incapable of speaking for herself? That doesn't really look very good for her and might even be construed, ahem, as being patronising and sexist on your part.

Dark Archive

What is really telling is that I feel less then willing to enter the thread. 80% of the posts feel hostile and acidic (and even baiting in some cases). People on both sides sound combative and hostile, probably more the they intend to (I'm willing to give everyone the benefit of the doubt here.) but the fact that you do means that even if are trying to have a reasoned and well mannered conversation/debate, you're failing at it. It feels more like everyone in thread sounds like we're all trapped in a small room while there is a shouting match going on with small bits of conversation here and there, overpowered by the yelling.

Which is sorta funny in a very cruel way, because as far as I can tell over nothing. The whole thread reads (and to be fair here I haven't read the whole thread) like this: "I would like more scantily clad females" -> "Noo! We don't want scantily clad females because it objectifys women!" -> "No it doesn't!" -> "Yes it does" -> "The people on the other side are bad people because of:...." rinse wash and repeat for the remainder of the thread. The original argument was "Does putting women/females in scantily clad outfits objectify them?". People then lined up into two sides and started arguing over it. Problem is no one took the time to sit down and list down what qualifies as objectifying women. Taking up the stance "I'm against objectifying women" isn't a stance. It does not define a position. We're on the internet, with people posting from all over the world, from all walks of life, with all sorts of upbringings. We can not assume that people have the same view as ourselves or anyone else in this thread. Therefore we must concisely and precisely define our positions. Otherwise you just in up arguing over nothing, and attacks on the poster, and not the position.

Scarab Sages

BM wrote:
Otherwise you just in up arguing over nothing, and attacks on the poster, and not the position.

Isn't that what the internet was designer for? ;)


Some muslims are offended by seeing a woman wearing pants and showing her face in public, should we be sensitive to their sexual and cultural biases as well? Maybe we should show all female cover art in burkhas.

Yes, I'm being facetious. The reason I brought up roguerogue's comment is because I wanted to point out that a reasonable, rational woman would not necessarily find this thread offensive.

Scarab Sages

Gailbraithe wrote:


No, that's not what you did. You made a direct comparison, claiming that the "I want to see more scantily clad women." is offensive in the same way that "I want to see less people of color." is.

Yes. Both statements offend people, not all people, but they offend large groups of people (not the entire group, but portions).

Gailbraithe wrote:


See, but the thing is, both statements aren't equally contentious. Both statements are contentious, but they are contentious for different reasons and to different people. That means they are not equally contentious. To be equally contentious, they would have to both be contentious to the same group of people For example, the terms "fireman" and "policeman" are equally contentious. They are contentious to same people for the same reasons.

That is illogical. If I say statement X is as contentious to group X as statement Y is to group Y, then they are equally contentious - the create the same degree of contention in a person of each group. That is the point of comparing things, you give people a basis for comparison so they can extend their thinking to the unfamiliar. To use your example, if I said "criminals are just as contentious to fireman as they are to policemen" you are correct, that is illogical. But if I said (and this compares more to my hypothetical statement) "fires are just as contentious to firemen as criminals are to policement" then that statement has logical grounding, and allows both parties to understand some of the feelings they have towards something.

Gailbraithe wrote:
To put a fine point on it, your argument would have us believe that the titling a thread "I think nazis suck." would be equally contentious as posting a thread titled "I think democrats suck." This is obviously an absurd conclusion, so your argument must be flawed.

I don't quite know how to respond to this. A thread titled "I think Nazis suck" is not contentious, because they do. However, some people might have legitimate gripes with Democrats. Yes, it is absurd to compare Nazis to Democrats. You are saying it is equally absurd to compare sexism to racism? This is a whole other debate, but I believe such a comparison would be legitimate (note, not equation).

Gailbraithe wrote:


Yeah, I see the difference. But you still haven't actually explained why it's not okay for some guys to want to see some scantily clad action interspersed in the art.

I've made my opinions about the topic, at this point I was addressing the issues surrounding the treatment of a small group of posters.

I've made my defense for the the others I sympathize with in this thread, which I felt was warranted given the number of people on each side. At this point, I think my argument has been made so I am taking a break.

EDIT: I should point out that these last few pages of posts have gone back to a proper discourse, so kudos to those posters who are reasoning.

Liberty's Edge

Jal Dorak wrote:
To use your example, if I said "criminals are just as contentious to fireman as they are to policemen" you are correct, that is illogical. But if I said (and this compares more to my hypothetical statement) "fires are just as contentious to firemen as criminals are to policement" then that statement has logical grounding, and allows both parties to understand some of the feelings they have towards something.

I think you didn't understand my example, I should have explained it in more detail.

The terms "Fireman" and "Policeman" are both contentious to certain feminist-minded people (myself included) because both terms imply that only men can serve in these functions. Society has responded by embracing the replacement terms "Firefighter" and "Police Officer," both of which are gender neutral statements -- this is what people originally meant by "politically correct language," back in the early 90's before the PC movement went crazy. The terms "Fireman" and "Policeman" are equally contentious because they are both contentious to the same group ("liberals"), for the same reason (they are sexist terms).

Now, on to your argument:

Jal Dorak wrote:
That is illogical. If I say statement X is as contentious to group X as statement Y is to group Y, then they are equally contentious - the create the same degree of contention in a person of each group. That is the point of comparing things, you give people a basis for comparison so they can extend their thinking to the unfamiliar.

This is why I brought up the Nazi example. I'm using a rhetorical method called reductio ad absurdo to show why your argument must be flawed.

Let's assume your premise is true, and that if statement X is as contentious to group X as statement Y is to group Y then statement X and Y are equally contentious.

Now, let's say that statement X is "Gay people can make good parents." and group X is homophobes, and statement Y is "Children can't be trusted to the care of homosexuals." and group Y is homosexuals.

Now, according to your argument, the statements "Gay people can make good parents." and "Children can't be trusted to the care of homosexuals." are equally contentious if homophobes are as offended by the statement "Gay people can make good parents." as gay people are by the statement "Children can't be trusted to the care of homosexuals."

You really want to stand by that? Because I think that the only reason statement X is offensive to group X is because they believe statement Y is true, and since statement Y has no basis in fact and is just sheer prejudiced nonsense that creates impediments to the liberties of group Y, it is offensive to say that the two statements are equally contentious.

Likewise, the statement "I don't like people of color." is very different from the statement "I like scantily clad women." even if both cause an equal about of contention from different groups for different reasons.

Jal Dorak wrote:
I don't quite know how to respond to this. A thread titled "I think Nazis suck" is not contentious, because they do. However, some people might have legitimate gripes with Democrats. Yes, it is absurd to compare Nazis to Democrats.

It's contentious to Nazis. See, this is what happens when you claim that statements are equally contentious regardless of who finds them contentious. You extend to everyone equal right to be offended, and equal right.

Now, of course, I don't mean to imply that women who object to the occasional scantily clad bit of fanservice are as easily dismissed as offended nazis, but I do certainly think that women who object to the occasional scantily clad bit of fanservice are far more easily dismissed than people of color who would take offense at the attempt to actively exclude people of color from the hobby.

Jal Dorak wrote:
You are saying it is equally absurd to compare sexism to racism? This is a whole other debate, but I believe such a comparison would be legitimate (note, not equation).

That wasn't what I was saying at all. But I don't disagree. There are certainly points of comparison between racism and sexism, but there are more differences than similarities. Unless you're willing to have that debate, then I would generally avoid equatting the two. it rarely serves any purpose except to needle whoever you are talking to, as it comes off as implying the other person is racist.

Dark Archive

Jal Dorak wrote:
However, I will say that she has been singled out with some rather indignant posts for stating her opinion, which had merit.

And yet isn't her opinion that men are juvenile, pathetic, basement-dwelling, mouth-breathing troglodytes exactly the same sort of sexism that she's decrying? I don't believe that she has been 'singled out' for 'stating her opinion.' She's been 'singled out,' by me at least, for insulting the heck out of people, rather than supporting her opinion. Those replying to her have been repeatedly insulted, and those who disagree with her have been accused of attacking her, when she's the one who has been on the attack. I'm not 'picking on her' for having girl parts. (I'm even less fond of being jumped all over by white dudes who think they have to play 'great white hope' and rush to get offended on behalf of groups who are perfectly capable of speaking for themselves about matters that offend them.) I'm 'picking on' her choice to insult people rather than talk to them, like equals, because, it seems to me, she doesn't consider men equals.

Isn't the double standard that only girls are allowed to attack boys, and have to be defended if anyone even *points this out* kinda sexist?

Her opinion is 100% valid. I've even posted that I agree with some of it.* Her choice to insult people I'm not behind.

*Indeed, having heard reasons why roguerouge doesn't like the fifth Freeport module, I find myself in complete agreement. I *hate* a thoughtless or casual use of rape in a gaming product, television show, novel, etc. But that's more of a personal bugaboo, from my own life, and I don't think I have the right to censor what other people write, merely to, as they say, 'vote with my dollar' and not buy products that bug me. For that matter, I won't be watching Saw or Hostel anytime soon, because the premise 'sounds gross.' Hellraiser? Fine. Splodin' bodies in John Carpenter's The Thing? Pass the pizza. 24 or the latest movie starring Mel Gibson? No thanks, watching people get tortured isn't my thing.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Companion, Pawns, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

This came up in chat this afternoon...

http://img292.imageshack.us/img292/6255/1200773194096qg8.jpg

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jal Dorak wrote:
To some people, sexism has more of an impact than racism.

Pretty much all people, I would think. Many people in this country can go days without seeing a person of color (years even, in some areas), but the vast majority of us grow up with people of the opposite gender in our homes, starting with a parent, possibly including siblings, and later as romantic partners.

Growing up in a house full of job-holding, business-owning and / or farm-running strong independent single women, I am occasionally surprised (and then disappointed) that other men even *can* still be dismissive of women. Having worked for at least three different women bosses, I can't imagine how some men would be able to function, taking orders from a women.

Misandry doesn't much impress me, 'though. I had this whacky notion that the equal rights movement was about making people *equal,* not making men pay for 50000 years of other guys behavior.

Dark Archive

Gailbraithe wrote:
The terms "Fireman" and "Policeman" are both contentious to certain feminist-minded people (myself included) because both terms imply that only men can serve in these functions.

Even the terms 'woman' and 'female' are kinda annoying that way, as they suggest that a woman is a sub-category of man (as the Bible suggests, with Eve being made from a piece of Adam), when the XX/XY chromosome thing tells us that we got that backwards and that males (XY) are a stripped-down 'crippled' sub-category of females (XX), specialized for a role, like some 'castes' of ant.

At least 'girl' is a word in it's own right, and not a subset of 'boy.'

Having worked as a secretary, I was amused at the contortions my boss would go through whenever I said I was his secretary. "No, you're an Administrative Assistant. No, you are Project Coordinator..." Blah, blah. 'I answer phones, get your mail, book your travel arrangements, run your paperwork around the office and bring you lunch. I'm your damn secretary, and I've got no problem with that. I went to college to be a teacher. I might even become, gasp, a *nurse* someday! And yet, somehow, my testicles will survive my complete disregard for gender stereotypes.'

Liberty's Edge

Set wrote:
Even the terms 'woman' and 'female' are kinda annoying that way, as they suggest that a woman is a sub-category of man...

That's entirely incorrect though. Woman is derived from wemen which is derived from wifmen, with wif being the original term for a female. Man being the term for a person. So a wifman would be a female human. The word wife has the same derivation.

Meanwhile, the term for male was wea or wer. It can still be seen in words like weapon (which at one point could be used to refer to a man's sword or his, um, "sword"), and werewolf which literally translates as manwolf.

So the real problem is the English language lost the prefix that distinguished male men from non-gender specific men. Instead of talking about weamen, wifmen and men, we talk about men and women and men, and so it creates confusion about what is meant when one says "All men are created equal" If we still used the wea and wif prefixes, then the meaning of "All men are created equal" would be plainly obvious.

The Exchange

roguerouge wrote:

Gailbraithe wrote:

roguerouge wrote:
This thread was about a bunch of posters getting together for the Lulz to shriek for more boobies. Yes, it was a comedy thread, but it was a mean-spirited and demeaning form of comedy.

That's one particularly dismissive and uninsightful way of interpreting the intent of this thread, but I think it ignores the larger social context in which this sort of humor exists.

I'll quote then examples of what I mean ...
Lord Fyre wrote:
To catch a troll, you need line, a poll, and bait...

So, the point of the OP was to be rude and see if he could get enough people out to annoy the rest of the boards. That was soon accomplished...
Ad Hominem wrote:
And a few pix of me doing Merisiel, too.

This poster gets what the real world equivalent of this thread...
Dark White wrote:
Despite my previous comments, a counter-balance to the wolf-whistles encountered up to that point

Snorter wrote:
I do recall the Widow Razor is possessed of some sweet, sweet boobage

Krome wrote:
most ... probably have various porn accounts of their own... So, once more... scantily clad females!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Then there's these beauties responding to criticism that this thread might be in poor taste and a touch off-putting and lame to fathers or women:
Krome wrote:
I like women in all shapes and forms. I understand many people are ashamed that they have those "feelings" and are afraid of their primitive side. I am also aware that many people want to do the politically correct thing, but forget that there is a natural thing as well.... As for hiding the pics of the drow... sounds like someone needs some therapy.

Krome wrote:
And I certainly do not feel the Gor books hated women. Subjected women yes, but that is not the same as hatred. Subjugation, and dominance-submissiveness is not the same as hate. If the Gor books hated women, then women would have been slaughtered whenever encountered. That was not the case.

And this man stepped up:
R_Chance wrote:
I have teen age daughters. One is a gamer. Do you? Feel free to explain it to yours, how that degrading bondage bit on the cover is "the highest form of humanity"

Which led Krome to suggest that the prior poster had special feelings... in one of the more vile bits of baiting that I've seen in a while...
Krome wrote:
Funny how you were the one who projected the degrading bondage bit and I didn't.... maybe you need to consider where that just came from? :)

But it's all for the lulz:
All DMs are evil wrote:
Booooobies!

Roguerouge, you are a little bit over fond of judging people. About the first post I read by you was judging me in the context of the Trollman debacle (as a “bad person” if memory serves) when I’m not sure we had even corresponded, and if we had certainly not much. You have a habit of foisting your beliefs on other people as self-evident truths, and I find it rather amusing you call me out for “name-calling” when you then go and post this.

Your original condemnation of me was because I quoted a private email I received from Trollman as being unfair play, but I actually quoted his (fairly odious) argument in full, in his own words and in context, to demonstrate that arguing with him was a waste of time. You, instead, have carefully excised the “best bits” from several posts to prove your point, and out of context. This is low, my friend.

I don’t deny your passion on this subject, plus your blood was up because you wanted to defend someone you cared about (albeit that, in my view, she walked into the whole affair and brought it on herself). I also think that, you, and she, are missing the point badly. This isn’t about objectifying women in a serious sense, it is about men joking about these things because it can be a minefield out there being a guy and hemmed in by the constraints of a post-feminist society, as a form of release from politically-correct constraints on thought, word and deed (and I’m not saying these constraints are wrong, by the way). Galbraithe puts it very well in his post, so I won’t bother to amplify on it.

But what I do think is you should judge less and understand a bit more about what this thread really means. Virtually no one (probably absolutely no one) on this thread thinks, in all seriousness, that objectifying women is right and good. But some of the more thoughtful people here are aware that an accommodation needs to be made between masculinity and an increasingly feminised society. Personally, I very strongly object to being told what to think and feel in respect of something that goes to the very core of my being – how I feel about women. That is where the sense of outrage at Krissbeth’s comments comes from, not because we are upset about not being able to objectify women. We are not all the same, we don’t necessarily feel the same way about things, and attempting to tell us what is “right” when many of us are in relationships and know what makes us and our partners tick (and it ain’t asceticism).

As for Krissbeth’s treatment – I don’t feel the need to be inclusive. I post here to hang out with likeminded people and relax, not as a form of social work. If someone turns round and rather impolitely mistreats me or someone else on the boards, I won’t bend over backwards to be nice and “feel their pain”. If someone like that leaves the boards, it is a minor tragedy (for them) because this is a really nice place with lots of cool people. But that is their choice, and their behaviour will determine what sort of welcome they get. Krissbeth was (basically) a bit silly and misjudged the situation. If she come back, great, and if she doesn’t… -shrug-


Kruelaid wrote:
roguerouge wrote:


... on the lack of parity in the hyper-sexualized imagery of males vs. females in Paizo's Gamemastery and Pathfinder's lines.

You've said some interesting things, some of which I agree with, but what I'm really wondering is, WHY should men and women be sexualized equally? And I ask this question in total seriousness. There are two sexes (genders anyone) and they ARE different and furthermore they are not homogeneous within themselves. Now I'm not saying I disagree with parity being ideal which may be due to my upbringing and academic background, but when I step back and look at the big picture of sex and sexuality and especially what I perceive to be big differences between sexes, I just can't find a reason why there shouldn't be more sexualized imagery of women in both my culture in general and in my fantasy gaming rulebooks - and when I say shouldn't I'm taking a big step away from a reality where women are sexualized more and it's not just men doing the sexualizing, and it's not just men the sexualization is appealing to.

Does everything have to be balanced out neatly?

That's a legit question without an easy answer.

As I've said, I think that parity in hyper-sexualized imagery (or objectifying or ogle-worthy, whatever) is a progress rather than the end goal. I tend not to like forms of sexuality that treat other people as means rather than ends to themselves, and I tend to think that such representations, in the massive quantities that we're exposed to them in this culture, contribute to that problem.

Believe me, teaching media studies, I've read hundreds of student papers and seen close to a thousand student videos that showcase how thoroughly their (and my) consciousness is colonized by mainstream forms of mass media products. Part of that is the natural part of becoming an artist: working through your artistic and cultural inheritance. But the weight of that inheritance, and some of its implications, disturbs me.

So, for me, parity in such forms of representation is the good rather than the perfect, to paraphrase our dear Republican nominee and someone else on this thread.

The case for parity, to me, seems to be a recognition that women are sexual agents as much as men are, if not more so. (More so, in my experience and the person with the anecdote about the hair salon.) When mass market products consistently represent women dominantly as the object of desire rather than as both desiring subjects and the object of desire, that's when I have a problem. I similarly have a problem when it's suggested through omission that men can't be the object of a desiring gaze from a straight female or *gasp* gay or bi male.

Such representations both reflect and change the world, exactly as a mirror's reflection both depicts but also invokes responses that change the reflection ("I need to fix my hair" or "Lookin' GOOD!" for example). It doesn't just reflect reality; it also shapes it.

Basically, I've been for greater diversity in images that encourage a desiring viewer, which would appeal to more demographics. Perfect number-crunching parity? No, but we're not remotely close to that at Paizo or elsewhere in the gaming industry.


MarkusTay wrote:


Aarontendo wrote:
Now I'm gonna request that Paizo bring up their representation of Asian women in their pictures.

Here Here!!!

I second this motion! I am sickened by Paizo's unfair display of Caucasian women and insist that the next 50-60 iconics they do are all "women of color".

<wink wink> (in case anyone didn't notice the tongue planted firmly in my cheek)

Actually, I'd be okay with opening up the discussion to the intersection of race and sexuality. It's certainly going to be an option once James and company get around to exploring the land where Kaijitsu (sp?) come from in Burnt Offerings. It'd be nice of us to actually give them some insight on where their community is BEFORE they place the expensive art orders.

Although, I have to say, hyper-sexualizing Seelah (the paladin) would be entering some very risky waters. Perhaps they'll just tart up the male drow....


Yasha0006 wrote:

RogueRouge, I think you would be better served to make a point rather than to just repost others comments. I am not saying this to be rude, this is actual advice. If you were to make a more complete point, without waiting for someone else to respond, you would stand a better chance for being your friends advocate.

The use of the quote was used for a couple of reasons.

1. Who said what is a form of evidence. I wanted to use examples to show what I was talking about and precisely why I'm thinking the way I am. Rather than simply characterizes what people said, I felt that it was fairest to quote their own words so that others could either just read those or know exactly what post that I was talking about.

2. A number of people were making arguments about who said what beyond the pale and why. But those arguments were drawing on six different pages. At this point, it's helpful to centralize the points that are at issue. It fosters clarity.

3. When the argument is about tone, baiting or trolling, exact language matters.

For me, if I read that someone's arguing that they felt baited or trolled, I'd want to read what exactly they are responding to, rather than trying to guess or go through six pages of posts on my own to figure it out.


I thought I saved this thread yesterday by talking about macho heroes and going to the gym. And 24 hours later THIS is what I found! You guys are just ungrateful.

And now back to the show [click].

Dark Archive

Gailbraithe wrote:
Set wrote:
Even the terms 'woman' and 'female' are kinda annoying that way, as they suggest that a woman is a sub-category of man...
That's entirely incorrect though. Woman is derived from wemen which is derived from wifmen, with wif being the original term for a female. Man being the term for a person. So a wifman would be a female human. The word wife has the same derivation.

Heh. Growing up surrounded by women has it's disadvantages as well. They were *convinced* that woman and female were derogatory or belittling terms. I guess I just absorbed that growing up and never questioned it.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
Jal Dorak wrote:
I did not directly compare sexism to racism (and that point is debatable anyway), only the notion of an offensive thread that some people are arguing is innocuous.

Maybe this wasn't your intent. What you communicated was the two phrases were equivalent.

Jal Dorak wrote:
The point of my hypothetical thread was not the content, but the offensiveness of such a statement to certain people, and the fallacious belief that adding a smily face to the end of it makes it okay. Both statements are equally contentious, for different reasons to different people, but you don't see that so obviously my attempt failed.

The difference is that not all women find the idea that men like to see scantily clad women offensive. I see more women at the beach wearing bikinis than summer dresses or bathrobes, many of them never get in the water.

It's more on the order of saying I want to see more of Sajan's rippling abs, and more dudes in loincloths ;)

Which incidentally was said on this thread... and incidentally RogueRogue echoed the sentiment. Saying this thread was offensive from the start is a bit disingeneous considering roguerogue was joining in the jokes. Here is her first post on the thread:

roguerouge wrote:
DarkWhite wrote:
C'mon, guys. What we really need are more scantily clad MALES! I mean Sajan the Monk iconic is a step in the right direction, but where are the cod-piece wearing Gladiators, the half-Orc Barbarians in wolf-skin loin-cloths, the leather-fetish Executioners, the Mwangi Halfling warriors in vine-leaf skirts? You're all with me on this, aren't you, guys? ... guys???
I'm right behind you...

Not "Hey guys this is a bit dehumanizing.", isn't it a little late for her to claim that this whole topic is offensive? This is all a subjective thing and equating it to making racist statements is way off base.

For the second time on this thread, I'm a man, baby!

Also, please note that the response was a push towards greater diversity (halflings, Sajan, cod-pieces, etc.) and thus entirely in conjunction with the major argument that I've been advancing in this thread.

My first post uses a one-line agreement with a poster who was using humor to try to move the discussion towards something a bit more welcoming and fun, rather than crude comments asking for "pix of me doing Merisiel."


Gailbraithe wrote:

It's about sexuality. Being a firefighter, doing butch manly things, is not going to compensate for feeling that you aren't allowed to express your own sexuality without guilt and shame. It won't make that guilt many modern men feel for succumbing to the lure of sex appeal and participating in the objectification of women go away -- and its important to remember just how much women are willing, and even sometimes gleeful, participants in the same process. It's stressful, especially for guys who aren't very deep or insightful, trying to deal with a world where some women use sex appeal to get what they want, and are quite obviously gleefully willing participants in the "objectification of women" and other women are claiming that the "objectification of women" is destroying them emotionally or driving wedges in society or whatever else they wish to pin on it.

You have to admit it, a lot of the time it comes off as half of women blaming men for falling for the wiles of the other half of women, and it does make one wonder if women should maybe be pointing the finger at their own sisters. It gets even sillier when artists get blamed for causing the "objectification of women" when they reference the wiles of women in their art. It's like if Wayne stopped drawing sexy women, there would be no more sexy women! Halleljah paradise of asexual mutual respect at last!

Anyways, all of this repression, all of this guilt-mongering over the horrible, terrible truth that guys think girls are hawt tends to lead to people blurting. Since blurting is funny, it becomes a running joke of its own. It becomes a safe way of expressing things.

It's much easier to say "Yay for boobies!" than to try to make a meaningful and deep statement about one's love and fascination with the female form without sounding like a complete and a utter ponce.

Gailbraithe, I can understand the reasons that you're citing for the male backlash. My problem with it, and my lack of empathy for it, is that it's been in use since the late 1980s; for one thing, to explain Howard Stern's appeal.* I guess that I think that guys shouldn't take 20+ years to figure this out how to live under a newly complex world order that doesn't always cater to them.

*thread jack: At least a part of Howard's appeal, incidentally, is that he's a damn fine radio artist, whatever I think of his actual content. I teach him when I do radio talk shows in my media studies class.


Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

About the first post I read by you was judging me in the context of the Trollman debacle (as a “bad person” if memory serves) when I’m not sure we had even corresponded, and if we had certainly not much. You have a habit of foisting your beliefs on other people as self-evident truths, and I find it rather amusing you call me out for “name-calling” when you then go and post this.

Your original condemnation of me was because I quoted a private email I received from Trollman as being unfair play, but I actually quoted his (fairly odious) argument in full, in his own words and in context, to demonstrate that arguing with him was a waste of time. You, instead, have carefully excised the “best bits” from several posts to prove your point, and out of context. This is low, my friend.

It was far from the first post I had written (not that there's any reason you should track my posts or I yours). I had actually posted to a thread or two in the Trollman issue, which I assume you were a part of, but there were so many of them it's possible we missed each other.

I mostly stay in the Pathfinder and Gamemastery boards, at least until the latter was abandoned for the PfRPG one. I vastly prefer to dish gaming advice than to do these kinds of threads.

If memory serves it was also in the context of defending your right to do that, my right to state that that went beyond the pale for me, Trollman's right to have charisma be his dump stat, and for other posters to make mistakes when they were incensed about his actions. I'm always going to defend your right to counter-speech without calling for the net-nannies, just as you defended everybody here from the dead horse poster.

As far as quoting out of context, several people have already complained that I used too much evidence, which was why I trimmed things down to the bits that seemed relevant. I can't please everybody, just like you can't.

If you think that I made a mistake there, it's certainly possible that I did. Quote the parts of those posts that you find relevant and I'll think about it. If I made a mistake, I'll agree in that case and move on, just like I did by limiting my argument to the Pathfinder and Gamemastery illustrations and admitting that Paizo does better than I thought when another poster posted evidence to my challenge.


roguerouge wrote:
Some Stuff

You know, to give krissbeth a little broad perspective of how people on this board view women maybe you should have her look at this thread. Note, I don't a single one of the women listed are the sort of submissive sex half naked sex kittens she seems to think everyone here is looking for. She might find that engaging people on the boards in friendly terms (with the understanding that hostility went both ways) is enjoyable. Maybe I worded that wrong. Coming onto a board and jumping into a fierce debate about something you are passionate about is bound to leave you a bit jaded. She should at least poke around the rest of the forum and see what the non-troglodytes are like here.


Lord Fyre wrote:

One thing on the original point of the thread.

My whole introduction to Pathfinder, and the two campaigns that have sprouted from it, and my choice to continue with the PathfinderRPG (as opposed to 4th Edition) were because of seeing Seoni on the cover of "The Skinshaw Murders" on the shelves of my Local Game Store.

Otherwise, I would likely have walked on by the adventure path, and (my personal gaming history) would likely have been different - and poorer - for it. :(

For me, it was Hook Mountain Massacre and, specifically, the character of Mammy Graul.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
roguerouge wrote:
Some Stuff
You know, to give krissbeth a little broad perspective of how people on this board view women maybe you should have her look at this thread. Note, I don't a single one of the women listed are the sort of submissive sex half naked sex kittens she seems to think everyone here is looking for. She might find that engaging people on the boards in friendly terms (with the understanding that hostility went both ways) is enjoyable. Maybe I worded that wrong. Coming onto a board and jumping into a fierce debate about something you are passionate about is bound to leave you a bit jaded. She should at least poke around the rest of the forum and see what the non-troglodytes are like here.

I'll mention it to her.

Obviously, since I pimp the Paizo product at every chance I get on EnWorld, I'll do the same in RL.

The Exchange

roguerouge wrote:
Aubrey the Malformed wrote:

About the first post I read by you was judging me in the context of the Trollman debacle (as a “bad person” if memory serves) when I’m not sure we had even corresponded, and if we had certainly not much. You have a habit of foisting your beliefs on other people as self-evident truths, and I find it rather amusing you call me out for “name-calling” when you then go and post this.

Your original condemnation of me was because I quoted a private email I received from Trollman as being unfair play, but I actually quoted his (fairly odious) argument in full, in his own words and in context, to demonstrate that arguing with him was a waste of time. You, instead, have carefully excised the “best bits” from several posts to prove your point, and out of context. This is low, my friend.

It was far from the first post I had written (not that there's any reason you should track my posts or I yours). I had actually posted to a thread or two in the Trollman issue, which I assume you were a part of, but there were so many of them it's possible we missed each other.

I mostly stay in the Pathfinder and Gamemastery boards, at least until the latter was abandoned for the PfRPG one. I vastly prefer to dish gaming advice than to do these kinds of threads.

If memory serves it was also in the context of defending your right to do that, my right to state that that went beyond the pale for me, Trollman's right to have charisma be his dump stat, and for other posters to make mistakes when they were incensed about his actions. I'm always going to defend your right to counter-speech without calling for the net-nannies, just as you defended everybody here from the dead horse poster.

As far as quoting out of context, several people have already complained that I used too much evidence, which was why I trimmed things down to the bits that seemed relevant. I can't please everybody, just like you can't.

If you think that I made a mistake there, it's certainly possible that I did. Quote...

I think that's fair enough. In a sense I'm a little disappointed that we (and others) are scrapping about this issue given we are probably not a million miles away in our views, by and large. It seems we are magnifying the differences and forgetting the common ground. I dunno, this whole thing is a minefield and krissbeth's argument opened up subjects both interesting and unhelpful. I also don't necessarily think that the giving or taking of offence is a bad thing, especially as we all have different thresholds, and the "I'm offended" gambit can otherwise close down an interesting debate. But there are obviously limits, they are just (in my view) more contexualised than maybe you would allow for (posting "Boobies!" in the above thread might be more appropriate than maybe in a serious discussion of sexual roles and stereotypes in D@D).

The Exchange

roguerouge wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

One thing on the original point of the thread.

My whole introduction to Pathfinder, and the two campaigns that have sprouted from it, and my choice to continue with the PathfinderRPG (as opposed to 4th Edition) were because of seeing Seoni on the cover of "The Skinshaw Murders" on the shelves of my Local Game Store.

Otherwise, I would likely have walked on by the adventure path, and (my personal gaming history) would likely have been different - and poorer - for it. :(

For me, it was Hook Mountain Massacre and, specifically, the character of Mammy Graul.

I'm assuming it was because she was an interesting villain, not because of her wardrobe malfunction?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

roguerouge wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:

One thing on the original point of the thread.

My whole introduction to Pathfinder, and the two campaigns that have sprouted from it, and my choice to continue with the PathfinderRPG (as opposed to 4th Edition) were because of seeing Seoni on the cover of "The Skinshaw Murders" on the shelves of my Local Game Store.

Otherwise, I would likely have walked on by the adventure path, and (my personal gaming history) would likely have been different - and poorer - for it. :(

For me, it was Hook Mountain Massacre and, specifically, the character of Mammy Graul.

She does very clearly illustrate a very different cultural perception of beauty.

According to "Classic Monsters Revisited," Ogres will see and react to her much as we might see and react to Seoni. :)

Mamma Graul really is a SMOKING HAWT BABE!!! (And she know it, and is not afraid to use it to her advantage. :D )

Scarab Sages

Aubrey the Malformed wrote:
think that's fair enough. In a sense I'm a little disappointed that we (and others) are scrapping about this issue given we are probably not a million miles away in our views, by and large. It seems we are magnifying the differences and forgetting the common ground. I dunno, this whole thing is a minefield and krissbeth's argument opened up subjects both interesting and unhelpful. I also don't necessarily think that the giving or taking of offence is a bad thing, especially as we all have different thresholds, and the "I'm offended" gambit can otherwise close down an interesting debate. But there are obviously limits, they are just (in my view) more contexualised than maybe you would allow for (posting "Boobies!" in the above thread might be more appropriate than maybe in a serious discussion of sexual roles and stereotypes in D@D).

You know, this post made me return to this thread, and for a good (meaning well-intentioned and happy) reason.

I finally saw your point of view. I'm not saying it is a good thing, but the fact this thread was created for humour (misplaced or not), I can now see why some posters might have become defensive for some of us coming in here with a more serious agenda (which is also fine on its own, but not so much in context of the thread). For that, I apologize.

Posters dislike it when threads get jacked by comedic posts, so the same can be true for comedy threads getting jacked by serious posts.

The diplomatic thing to do would have been to create a new thread about sexual roles and stereotypes. I haven't done so myself, as I have nothing further to add, but if someone did want to, the Gamer Life forum would be a good place to start.

Again, apologies for getting too serious over this thread (and to Set for coming off like I was a knight in shining armor or something, I really just meant it for all parties to take a breath).

And I have to agree, the comments on this thread have been very tame compared to other environments I have been in (I used to work in a warehouse - we were sexist even to the other men).

Liberty's Edge

roguerouge wrote:
Gailbraithe, I can understand the reasons that you're citing for the male backlash. My problem with it, and my lack of empathy for it, is that it's been in use since the late 1980s; for one thing, to explain Howard Stern's appeal.* I guess that I think that guys shouldn't take 20+ years to figure this out how to live under a newly complex world order that doesn't always cater to them.

Oh, really? How long should it take men to reinvent the wheel?

Look man, you can be a condescending SNAG all you want, but that doesn't mean you're righteous, it just means you're a self-righteous jerk. It's really obvious that you think you're better than all of us because you've glommed onto some neurotic misandrist with body issues and she'll let you play White Knight for her, but at the end of the day you're position relies entirely on the rest of us not questioning your right to insult us all willy-nilly.

I get it, you and I, we are both guys, and we grew up in a world that said "Everything your daddy did was wrong, you have to be entirely different." And that's got a lot of guys confused, and a lot of guys refusing to grow up, because that's how terrified they are of becoming like their dad.

And the man-hating feminists have certainly presented a new model of masculinity which some guys, such as yourself, have been glad to jump on board. Except the problem is its a masculinity defined on women's terms, and specifically on women-who-don't-like-men's terms. It's hard not to notice how much the New Model Male and a well-whipped eunuch have in common.

I don't have the kind of intense self-loathing and a hatred it takes to embrace a model of masculinity that puts me in position of constantly apologizing for being male. I frankly think the adult-boys who make Howard Stern and Adam Carolla stars are WAY, WAY less obnoxious and annoying that SNAGs like you.

Scarab Sages

Gailbraithe wrote:


Look man, you can be a condescending SNAG all you want, but that doesn't mean you're righteous, it just means you're a self-righteous jerk.

Are you implying he is a member of the Society of North American Goldsmiths?! How dare you! ;)

The concept of a sensitive male has existed for centuries, it was only really killed off during the Victorian era of sexual repression. Not to imply all men in these eras were sensitive in the extreme, but a good deal were and were accepted. Society goes in cycles.

Liberty's Edge

Jal Dorak wrote:

Are you implying he is a member of the Society of North American Goldsmiths?! How dare you! ;)

The concept of a sensitive male has existed for centuries, it was only really killed off during the Victorian era of sexual repression. Not to imply all men in these eras were sensitive in the extreme, but a good deal were and were accepted. Society goes in cycles.

There's a world of difference between being a sensitive male and being a SNAG (Sensitive New Age Guy).

SNAGs think they can prove how sexually enlightened they are by constantly talking down to, condescending to, belittling, and attacking other men -- usually quite hypocritically -- and are usually patronizing chauvinists who attack other men for their perceived sexism instead of addressing their own. They're really common anywhere where pseudo-feminist rage about trivial issues can be found, much rarer in places where people are discussing anything remotely resembling real issues affecting women.

My experience leads me to believe that guys like roguerogue seek acceptance from misandristic quasi-feminists* like krissbeth primarily because they can't it hack in male peer groups and always end up being the low man on the totem pole. So instead, they try to weasel their way into the company of women who don't like men by embracing the hate.

Guys like roguerogue make a bit noisy show about how much better than the rest of us poor juvenile pig-men, but I'd bet money that 90% of his fervor on this thread is rooted in a desire to get in krissbeth's pants.


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

So much for getting back to civilized discussion...

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

If "User R is a bastard" is considered a personal attack, then I think "People like User R are bastards" should be considered so, as well. We're trying to avoid personal attacks in these discussions.

I wish I had something more to add to the actual topic; but I've said my piece already.

301 to 350 of 564 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Lost Omens Campaign Setting / General Discussion / "This is all very interesting stuff... but I still think there should be more scantily clad females :)" All Messageboards