Female Gamer Needing Her Voice Heard!


Gamer Life General Discussion

51 to 100 of 172 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Scarab Sages

GeraintElberion wrote:

I just don't like being patronised.

I'm 28, I think with my head, not with my penis. If my DM shows me a scantily clad warrior woman with a big sword I want to be thinking, in character; "So, the queen likes to unsettle and distract her guests, rather than having a real bodyguard - either she can protect herself well enough, or she's over-confident."

But I have to engage in a bit of meta-game thinking instead.

As in; "So the pictures of a supermodel in a leather thong, chainmail bra and 8ft long sword - but I'd better ask the DM to confirm what she's actually wearing, carrying and looks like."

Male characters usually have functional equipment and if they don't then it is revealing - we learn something about the character by looking at it. But with so many female characters, we don't.

I've just been re-reading Carnival of Tears - Valeros looks like a fighter, Namdrin's fancy cloak, long hair and paired short swords (scabbards across his back) tell me that he's a perfomer, rather than just a TWF.

I want versimilitude.

Wow, I think you've just put your finger on exactly why the more incongruous/unrealistic depictions bother me so much. Well said!


Inara Red Cloak wrote:
I am a Female Gamer...

What!? Females are gaming now?

But how...

When...

Where...

Damn it! Why am I always ou of the loop.


Tharen the Damned wrote:
Illessa wrote:
On the other hand Justified scantily clad, strong women? Now that I can get behind. A warrior in a tropical climate, an arcane caster, a social rogue, or any character during their down time; if it would be in character to be dressed in an alluring fashion, then awesome! This goes for any character willing to shell out for Glamered armour too :P.

For me Seoni is one of those justified scantily clad women. She does not need armor and knows she looks good and has the charisma.

On a sidenote: As much as i like to see women in High Heels, it is completely ridicoulous for most adventurers. Trecking though the woods or Dungeoncrawling in 5 inch Stilettos?
Thankfully all Iconis have sensible footwear. Although Seonis Sandals are pushing it.

Although don't forget that her outfit makes any strong updraft cause all kinds of problems. I forget, did they give her the fly spell?


Lord Fyre wrote:


Remember there is no single definition of "Feminist" any more.

Absolutely true. I remember when I made the mistake of okaying a student proposal to write a term paper on the Buffy the Vampire Slayer series as feminist. The student spent the first twenty pages describing the various possible definitions of the term feminist, because I required that she actually state what she meant by that term. Great paper, but I probably should have told her to narrow her terminology to a particular strand of feminism. She looked a bit... harried by the end of the project.

Liberty's Edge

Wow, such a refreshing post I've forgotten to have my cup of coffee this morning. Well said, all!

-DM Jeff


GeraintElberion wrote:

I just don't like being patronised.

I'm 28, I think with my head, not with my penis. If my DM shows me a scantily clad warrior woman with a big sword I want to be thinking, in character; "So, the queen likes to unsettle and distract her guests, rather than having a real bodyguard - either she can protect herself well enough, or she's over-confident."

But I have to engage in a bit of meta-game thinking instead.

As in; "So the pictures of a supermodel in a leather thong, chainmail bra and 8ft long sword - but I'd better ask the DM to confirm what she's actually wearing, carrying and looks like."

Male characters usually have functional equipment and if they don't then it is revealing - we learn something about the character by looking at it. But with so many female characters, we don't.

I've just been re-reading Carnival of Tears - Valeros looks like a fighter, Namdrin's fancy cloak, long hair and paired short swords (scabbards across his back) tell me that he's a perfomer, rather than just a TWF.

I want versimilitude.

QFT. Beer mug at your belt? Reveals character. Carrying 8 different daggers? Reveals capabilities.

Dark Archive

Amber Scott wrote:
-Amber S., who likes sexy medusas

This one, by Talon Dunning, looks pretty cool.


I love this thread. I appreciate the original poster who started it.

Mrs. Watcher is a retired gamer, and as a professional career person has always been interested in women's rights and women's issues.

One comment she shared with me on this sort of topic (its a paraphrase even though it looks like quote):

"Looking attractive and sexy in fantasy roleplaying was never so much an issue with me, as was the opportunity to be competant, effective, contribute meaningfully, be taken seriously when I was serious, and to have overall equity with male characters and players. If the character was sexy, or wore outrageous outfits- it didn't bother me as long as my other needs were met by the game. I always wanted to have as much fun as the blokes, and sometimes I would play male characters just for that reason; until I got into games that let me play a woman with all the fun and diversity that male players received. That isn't always a function (or malfunction) of the game writers however, sometimes that falls on the GM and the other Players."

I mean no disrespect to the women how do have an issue with the objectification (and honestly, there is a line where that is what it is), however, sometimes I think the reaction is a symptom of some other related issue.. like being an equal in name only.

Dark Archive

Illessa wrote:
(though a realistic variety of body shapes is good, people don't need to be a pair of melons attached to a stick to be incredibly attractive after all),

While it's no-longer-in-fashion to bash on Rob Liefield, one of my biggest gripes with his art was that the women all had bosums the size of their head (as in, each bosum was the size of their head, or *larger*), wore high heels and *were olympic-level gymnasts,* flipping around the battlefield, dodging bullets and kicking butt landing gracefully on those spindly six-inch stilettos that pushed their butts out. Worse, these were the characters that had no super-powers, such as Vogue, of Youngblood. Apparently she just *trained real hard* to be an Olympic level gymnast with 40 lb melons in six-inch heels and didn't actually have super-human strength and agility, or anti-gravity generators in her voluminous chest.

Meanwhile, in the real world, Pam Anderson can barely even roll over in bed without mechanical assistance or some sort of complicated maneuver involving a team of engineers.

Jim Lee and Mike Turner may have had a lot of gratuitous cheesecake in their depictions of Psylocke and Sara Pezzini / Aspen Matthews, but at least the characters body weren't (usually) grossly distorted, and Mike Turner went so far as to provide a fair amount of beefcake as well, with gratuitous shots of Nottingham or Hawke, who seemed to have the same problem as the female characters about their clothes getting ripped off in every fight... (Obviously the guy watched a lot of Star Trek as a kid and noted that the first casualty of every fight was Kirk's tunic.)


Set wrote:
Amber Scott wrote:
-Amber S., who likes sexy medusas

This one, by Talon Dunning, looks pretty cool.

Love that M&M art..

It's interesting.. the story of Medusa is a sexual story dealing with objectification to a degree.

Medusa (at the time a priestess) is seduced by Posideon in Athena's temple (the virgin goddess) and in typical Greek style, it is the woman who is punished for the transgression. Posideon is the objectifier in this case.

There are two variations of the myth, one where Medusa and her sisters are made so hideous as they turn people to stone, and another where they retain their beauty but still turn people to stone. This second variation is often supported by art, both greek and later depictions.

What is interesting about the second variation is that the Gorgons are now set apart or alienated from the rest of society. They retain their beauty, but no longer can enjoy the company and community of other people. They can no longer have mates who can fully appreciate them by looking upon them. They are made lonely by Athena.. and that is actually a curse.

Whereupon in the other variation, supported historically by Dungeons and Dragons, the Gorgons are evil anyway and their 'curse' amounts to an evil eye-beam death ray. If you're already evil, then that isn't much of a curse, it's actually just a super-power for you to afflict on others. Though one could argue that they became evil afterwards.. of course who could blame them after having been made hideous.

My point is that the curse depicted as a "curse" (i.e. punishment) is often overlooked in that myth. Likewise the origin is in forbidden lust in a chaste and sancrosanct location.

I remember trying to take this position to Nick Louge's Blood of the Gorgon group.. but the desire for horror won out in that case (and in fairness I suppose it suited his story better).


Yasha0006 wrote:

Something to think about too everyone, is that people who have what I might term an 'enlightened' view of things (i.e. Don't care what society or feminist movements say and just do what feels right to them), who are willing to express those views are not common people. Essentially, at least in my experience, being fully open to personal freedom is not something a lot of people are willing to understand or accept.

Inara, you expressed in your first post the exact same way I see such portrayals of female characters of this sort. Its not objectifications, its more like admiration. There is a strong, independent (perish the thought) woman who doesn't give a damn what others think and will be that way regardless.

My admiration and attraction to such women is one of the reasons I asked the lady who is now my wife to marry me. That is exactly the sort of woman I wanted to have in my life. Not an ornament, but a woman who wasn't afraid to be the person she really was.

As a side note, my wife is a total spitfire, a kickboxer of respectable skill and defeater of telemarketers everywhere. I love her so much.

Thanks Inara for making a posting that I didn't have to tiptoe on.

Oh...and my wife calls me a pervert all the time (like daily), but she has told me she likes me that way...go figure?

Yasha

Apparently I love my husband for the same reasons.

... he's a bit crude sometimes, but it's hilarious and I love him for it.

Besides, it gives me an excuse to be crude, lewd, and immature with someone I know respects me.

Besides, it helps sharpen my wit when I talk to him.


And BTW, as far as kicking serious behind in high heels (okay, maybe not stilletos, but a woman's legs look awesome in platform heels)... has any one seen the Farscape movie the Peacekeeper Wars?

Claudia Black, in tight black leather, wearing platform combat boots (with heel!), giving birth in a firefight...

... now that's a woman!


Following up on the Farscape comment, if we want to talk about characters in science fiction series, I always thought Kaylee, in Firefly, was pretty good.

Too often, when you see female character fulfilling a stereotypically male role in fantasy or science fiction shows, they just become men with boobs (well, they're cuter than men, but you know what I mean). The talk and act just like a male character would, except they are female. It's like the writer didn't know what to do with it, so he just wrote it the same as he would for a male character.

Kaylee on the other hand is covered in grease and working on the engine one moment, and fawning over a frilly dress the next. She goes to show that you can have a female character in a male role without the female character having to lose her more feminine qualities (yes, generalizing, but I'm talking about the traditional sense of those qualities). I prefer that to the message that in order for women to compete or be accepted in male roles they have to become male in their actions.

Dark Archive

Steerpike7 wrote:

Too often, when you see female character fulfilling a stereotypically male role in fantasy or science fiction shows, they just become men with boobs (well, they're cuter than men, but you know what I mean). The talk and act just like a male character would, except they are female. It's like the writer didn't know what to do with it, so he just wrote it the same as he would for a male character.

Kaylee on the other hand is covered in grease and working on the engine one moment, and fawning over a frilly dress the next. She goes to show that you can have a female character in a male role without the female character having to lose her more feminine qualities (yes, generalizing, but I'm talking about the traditional sense of those qualities). I prefer that to the message that in order for women to compete or be accepted in male roles they have to become male in their actions.

Very true, and I was impressed with how overtly sexual she was at times, while still seeming completely innocent and charming. She managed to complain about not having enough sex (and even mention masturbation! and enthused over the notion of 'boy-whores!') without ever once being portrayed as 'trampy.'

Zoe was my favorite, but she wasn't terribly feminine. :)

Liberty's Edge

I wonder why no one ever complains about the objectification of men in fantasy art.

There are tons of works by Boris Vajello, Julie Bell, Luis Royo and others showing heavily muscled and oiled men in nothing, or perhaps only an animal hide thong, fighting monsters in snowstorms, in deserts on mountaintops and numerous other places where clothing would be necessary.

For some reason, especially among the "looking-for-a-reason-to-be-outraged-and-offended" variety of feminists, this is glorification of the man.

But, if you substituted the man for a woman in the same amount of clothing, it suddenly becomes "objectification."

Sounds to me like it isn't the artists (or we, the fans)who have a problem.

Kudos to the ladies here on Paizo for being sensible.


Very true. Joss Whedon (sp?) is great at protraying strong women that are wholly female.
Which makes me wonder, what would happen if Joss wrote a TV series or book series based on a medievil D&D world?
I'd watch it.

Just a bit of humor: when I was in Highschool and studying martial arts, my mother got me a magnet for my locker which reads: I can kick your butt without ever smearing my eyeliner.

I still have it.

Dark Archive

Steerpike7 wrote:


Kaylee on the other hand is covered in grease and working on the engine one moment, and fawning over a frilly dress the next. She goes to show that you can have a female character in a male role without the female character having to lose her more feminine qualities (yes, generalizing, but I'm talking about the traditional sense of those qualities). I prefer that to the message that in order for women to compete or be accepted in male roles they have to become male in their actions.

Jewel Staite who played Kaylee is now on Stargate: Atlantis, where she continues her tradition of showing that a woman can be a woman and still be accepted by the men.

Spoiler:
In fact in one episode she played a replicator version of her self that was leading a rebellion against the main group of replicators.

Spoiler:
My favorite Kaylee moment is in the movie Serenity when they are about to be slaughtered and Simon laments that he and Kaylee had never been intimate, she replies "you mean if we make it out of here you'll sleep with me? Well, hell, I'm going to live!"


Set wrote:


Zoe was my favorite, but she wasn't terribly feminine. :)

All of the women on that show were quite attractive (well, the main characters - not taking about Patience or anything).

For pure beauty it's hard to beat Inara though.

Liberty's Edge

You go girl!


Cuchulainn wrote:

I wonder why no one ever complains about the objectification of men in fantasy art.

There are tons of works by Boris Vajello, Julie Bell, Luis Royo and others showing heavily muscled and oiled men in nothing, or perhaps only an animal hide thong, fighting monsters in snowstorms, in deserts on mountaintops and numerous other places where clothing would be necessary.

For some reason, especially among the "looking-for-a-reason-to-be-outraged-and-offended" variety of feminists, this is glorification of the man.

But, if you substituted the man for a woman in the same amount of clothing, it suddenly becomes "objectification."

Sounds to me like it isn't the artists (or we, the fans)who have a problem.

Kudos to the ladies here on Paizo for being sensible.

Depends, in part, on the activity of the character in question. When you're seeing both characters nearly naked, you start having to look at the role they play in the piece - active/agressive, dominant or inactive/passive, subordinate. There has been an awful lot of the latter and that's part of the difference between objectification and glorification.

Chalk me up to liking a mix of images and more women in the active/heroic role in art in general.

Dark Archive

Bill Dunn wrote:
Depends, in part, on the activity of the character in question. When you're seeing both characters nearly naked, you start having to look at the role they play in the piece - active/agressive, dominant or inactive/passive, subordinate. There has been an awful lot of the latter and that's part of the difference between objectification and glorification.

Definitely. Dejah Thoris cowering behind John Carter could be dressed (and himself starkers), but it's still the scene that is a bit 'old-fashioned' for modern viewers.

Ironically, the most 'dominant/submissive' picture I recall from 1st edition D&D was in Dieties & Demigods, where a clothed Drow priestess is sacrificing a naked (human? elven? I forgetted.) male.

Liberty's Edge

Bill Dunn wrote:


Depends, in part, on the activity of the character in question. When you're seeing both characters nearly naked, you start having to look at the role they play in the piece - active/agressive, dominant or inactive/passive, subordinate. There has been an awful lot of the latter and that's part of the difference between objectification and glorification.

Chalk me up to liking a mix of images and more women in the active/heroic role in art in general.

True, a lot of that is in the eye of the beholder. Take the fantasy image of a scantily clad or nude woman in the embrace of a demon. Is she objectified because she is being "taken" by it, or is she glorified because she is seducing it? Does she necessarily have to be stabbing the demon with a sword in order to be seen as powerful?

Even a woman cowering could arguably be considered "powerful," as she is influencing the man to put himself in harms way (and possibly get himself killed) for her sake.

One could go on for days, and run in circles about masculine versus feminine roles, types of power, etc. - one of the reasons the hissy-fits thrown over such art is so annoying.

Sovereign Court

Set wrote:


While it's no-longer-in-fashion to bash on Rob Liefield

That never goes out of fashion.


Guy Humual wrote:
Set wrote:


While it's no-longer-in-fashion to bash on Rob Liefield
That never goes out of fashion.

Ever.


Set wrote:
Rob Liefield

Sorry, but you mentioned the unmentionable, and now I can't help myself.

The 40 worst Rob Liefeld pictures.

And I really, really don't get why so many guys consider Pamela Anderson to be so attractive. Is it only because of her breasts?

Grand Lodge

Shinmizu wrote:
Set wrote:
Rob Liefield

Sorry, but you mentioned the unmentionable, and now I can't help myself.

The 40 worst Rob Liefeld pictures.

And I really, really don't get why so many guys consider Pamela Anderson to be so attractive. Is it only because of her breasts?

Pam ANderson was beautiful when she first appeared as a playmate. Then she messed it all up with a boob job... *sigh*

Dark Archive

Shinmizu wrote:
Set wrote:
Rob Liefield

Sorry, but you mentioned the unmentionable, and now I can't help myself.

The 40 worst Rob Liefeld pictures.

It was a train wreck. I had to look at it all.

I hate you.

Also, I hate myself, because I think I have most of those comics...

Shinmizu wrote:
And I really, really don't get why so many guys consider Pamela Anderson to be so attractive. Is it only because of her breasts?

Something about breasts makes men go stupid. I watched a gay guy go glassy-eyed because the woman in front of him pushed her boobs up, so I think it's hard-wired in and comes as a complimentary gift with a pair of testicles.

His defensive over-reaction later when I called him on it; "I'm gay, I'm not blind!"

For me, the eternal mystery is how anyone could find Paris Hilton attractive. The girl from Mannequin, during the day, when she was, yanno, *a real mannequin, made out of plastic?* Way more realistic, and way, way, way hotter.


Krome wrote:


Pam ANderson was beautiful when she first appeared as a playmate. Then she messed it all up with a boob job... *sigh*

It wasn't just the boob job. It was also everything else she had done, including the shift into trashy style make-up and hair.


Inara Red Cloak wrote:


I am a Female Gamer, and I am hetrosexual, and I support scantily clad females in gaming.

and now I'll tell you why.

I don't think it's sexist. I just think it's silly. ^^

If there's a reason, there's no problem with varying degrees of nudity. People washing at the river, dancers in a brothel, or usual fashion against the heat in warm lands.
But chain-mail bikinis are just silly. It doesn't so much insult my tastes, as my intelect. ^^

Liberty's Edge

Thanks for posting this Inara, and the other women who chimed in. Sometimes the only voice that gets heard is the haters, but in my many years of gaming I have seen just as many women who, like you, wanted to "live large" and be spectacular in every sense through gaming. I totally get that too, because pretty much all my male characters would qualify as "beefcake." My male fighters (my favorite class) never use Charisma as their dump stat. That's what Wisdom is for!

People have raised the issue of justifiable cheesecake, and that's very reasonable. I think paizo in particular has done an excellent job of integrating cheesecake in to the artwork in a sensible, non-intrusive way. The only truly cheesecake character is Seoni, and she's quite intentionally designed so that it makes sense for the character (what with the high charisma, full body tattoos and force field). The heavy armor characters in particular -- Seelah and Kyra -- offer very non-cheesecake options, while some of the male characters -- Seltyiel -- are clearly girly fanservice (he's the male Seoni, and totally a "Jareth" type character).

That's whats important: balance, and openness to many approaches to creating and playing characters. Golarion ought to ultimately be a place where smexy sorcerers of either gender can mix it up with competent professionals. It shouldn't be Senzar, but there's no need to completely expunge the game of any hint of sex.

I tried to post this in the other thread, but the Post Monster ate it, but I think it's relevant in this thread so I'll try it again. it's long, so I'll stick it behind a spoiler:

Spoiler:

I've been gaming for twenty years, and in that time I have seen the gaming industry constantly changing and responding to the progressive elements within society. I've been involved in gaming discussions on the internet since at least 1997, and in that time I have seen the discussion of this issue come up time and time again, frequently in the form of debates over the "chainmail bikini" or under other cloaks. I've seen the industry change and respond to the argument -- paizos iconics are proof of that, but even going back to Red Box D&D it was clear the industry was stumbling towards a truly inclusive vision of fantasy gaming.

In all that time, there seems to be a small contingent that not only provokes the discussion, but cannot be placated in their opposition to

The people who oppose cheesecake try to present the existence of cheesecake as solely appealing to prurient interest, specifically male prurient interest, and of being harmful in some non-specific way to women in general. Thus they frame the debate as one of misogynistic men defending the sanctity of their perversion over the well-being of women. Because their argument is based on fundamentally hateful assumptions about men, I'm going to call this the misandrist position.

In this, they remind me of another group: homophobes. Homophobes who oppose any sort of inclusion of homosexuals into any arena try to present the existence of any positive depiction of homosexuality as solely appealing to a prurient interest, and of being harmful in some non-specific way to families in general. Thus they frame the debate as one of a homosexual lobby defending the sanctity of their perversion over the well-being of families.

Both groups demonize their opponents, both groups rely on claims without factual evidence -- or at least, without factual evidence accepted outside their own circles.

Both groups claim to represent broad groups of people -- women and families respectively -- that include broad subsets that actively and passively oppose their representation.

Both groups see the world through heavy filters: the misandrist can't distinguish between Heavy Metal (the magazine) and the 3.5 Player's Handbook, the homophobes think every sitcom is Will & Grace. Hell, the homophobes can't even see the homophobia in Will & Grace.

Despite the large number of families that have found healthy and positive ways to deal with homosexuality; whether that be in the form of gay parents raising straight children, or straight parents embracing gay children, or just families that embrace acceptance and tolerance as family values; the homophobes continue to insist that they are defending families in general. Families that they don't represent are presented as lost, misguided, traitors, or have their very existence glossed over and denied.

In addition to the comments in this threads, there is the huge subsections of fandom composed of women that celebrate the sex appeal of female characters rooted in cheesecake fantasy art. At conventions, the most commonly seen costume outfits worn by women are of very sexually appealing female characters. You see a lot of Princess Leias, and specifically Slave Girl Leias. I've seen photos from conventions with fifty or more SGLs in one room. You never seen Leia in Boushh Disguise! Yet, we're supposed to believe that these women that enjoy the fantasy of being sexy for a weekend at a convention do not exist at all in gaming, and have no desire to live out the same sort of fantasy in a gaming context? Then to claim that it is somehow harmful to women if gaming companies include that archetype, of the sexy and empowered female character, into the game?

Or you know, go to deviantart, and explain why 80%+ of the drawings of half-naked chicks are done by women. Or explain why the only person on these forums who has posted actual pornographic drawings of Seoni is Lilith, who is a woman.

It's ludicrous. Really, the misandrists require you to not only believe that the only reason guys like Seoni is because she's quality spank bank material, but to believe that all of the women who dress like Slave Girl Leia, draw or appreciate cheesecake art, post their pathfinder porn, and otherwise participate in perpetuating the fantasy archetype of the confidently sexy woman are so brain-washed that they don't actually know what they themselves like and can tolerate.

It should be no surprise that the misandrist worldview is ultimately a misogynistic one as well, as both misandry and misogyny stem from the same root: misanthropy.

We dismiss the opinions of homophobes out of hand. Most reasonable straight men don't flip out and raise hell if the local Paladin is gay, or some NPC is presented as a pretty-boy Jareth type (i.e. girly fanservice), or if Valeros is presented in such a way to make girls think he's adorable (have you noticed that? I've noticed that. Not all girly fanservice is visual (nor is all guy fanservice for that matter)). When a guy (or girl) does flip out about these things, they are immediately recognized as unreasonable haters to be ignored.

Likewise, most reasonable women don't take issue with the occasional femme fatal, sexy rogue, or babelicious sorceress. So why not do the same of the misandrists? If a woman (or man) takes issue with the characterization of women in a game, then they should be heard out.

But when they stop offering reasonable arguments, when they deny that things do change, that many options are presented, when they demonize those who disagree with their position, when they claim harm is done without evidence, and when they won't accept anything less that total capitulation to their worldview (for example, refusing to consider the realities of markets), then they should be ignored, because they are not reasonable people and nothing good will come of listening to them.

Because seriously, I've been listening to this argument for at least 12 years, and I remember it going on in the Dragon forums pages before then, so it's been close to twenty years that this same inane worldview has been trotted out, and it's high time that the gaming community recognized it as counter-productive and a waste of time.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

On the other hand, as a male gamer I can see the point. The scantily clad heroine wouldn't be nearly as objectionable if she was not practically the only way that heroic women are portrayed in fantasy and on the electronic media. The change in paladin armor appearance between male and female characters is one of the running jokes on Warcraft, as pointed out quite nicely by thse two links below. The message is yes, men can be heroic even if they're as balding as Bruce Willis or as fat as William Shatner, but if you're not Barbara Breastcake in a chain mail bikini, I guess you're not in the running?

Dressing Room Blues

Shopping at War*mart


Thank you Inara.

You've found the balance in this topic.


LazarX wrote:


Dressing Room Blues

Shopping at War*mart

LOL That was awesome!

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Cuchulainn wrote:


One could go on for days, and run in circles about masculine versus feminine roles, types of power, etc. - one of the reasons the hissy-fits thrown over such art is so annoying.

One could. but when all the rationalisations are boiled down to it comes to this. Despite the fact that more women are getting into gaming and comics, it's still pretty much a medium bent on servicing male tastes to the point of continuing traditional chauvinsitic sterotypes of both male and female characters. Male characters get what they want by punching anyone in thier way. Female characters are either being "seductive" (read desireable in a sexual way) or fighting in impossible poses wearing implausible gear. In Warcraft when men wear plate armor they look like knights, when female characters wear the SAME armor, they look like Wonder Woman. (which gets really offputting when that female warrior is a gnome)

But to be fair there are bad and there is worse. Bad as Warcraft can get sometimes, it's not anywhere like Lineage.

Liberty's Edge

LazarX wrote:

In Warcraft when men wear plate armor they look like knights, when female characters wear the SAME armor, they look like Wonder Woman. (which gets really offputting when that female warrior is a gnome)

But to be fair there are bad and there is worse. Bad as Warcraft can get sometimes, it's not anywhere like Lineage.

And to be fair, Warcraft has nothing to do with Pathfinder, and pointing out problems in Warcraft's art styles is largely irrelevant to discussion of Pathfinder. We've seen what armored women in Pathfinder look like, and it's not Wonder Woman.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Gailbraithe wrote:
LazarX wrote:

In Warcraft when men wear plate armor they look like knights, when female characters wear the SAME armor, they look like Wonder Woman. (which gets really offputting when that female warrior is a gnome)

But to be fair there are bad and there is worse. Bad as Warcraft can get sometimes, it's not anywhere like Lineage.

And to be fair, Warcraft has nothing to do with Pathfinder, and pointing out problems in Warcraft's art styles is largely irrelevant to discussion of Pathfinder. We've seen what armored women in Pathfinder look like, and it's not Wonder Woman.

The Warcraft examples however are symbolic and symptomatic on how women charcters have been treated in gaming and fantasy literature. I chose the Warcraft examples mainly for parody and humor value and because they tell that universal story which is NOT confined to MMORGS.

Dark Archive

Shinmizu wrote:
Set wrote:
Rob Liefield

Sorry, but you mentioned the unmentionable, and now I can't help myself.

The 40 worst Rob Liefeld pictures.

I think I just laughed myself half to death looking at that. I was never a Liefeld fan when he was considered a 'star' in the field. (Or for that matter, I wasn't originally a Jim Lee fan, but while I think Jim Lee's work has progressed and become very good, I've never had the stomach to give Robbery a second chance.)

As far as the OP, I have to totally agree. A strong female lead that isn't afraid to show off doesn't hurt, as long as it isn't always the norm. I've been part of campaigns where it seemed like every major homebrewed female NPC was created to be a step above the last in skill, fame and physical beauty, until it became laughable. "Oh, the lord has to introduce us to his daughter, who will be traveling with us. She's probably really a 25th level assassin and runs around the keep in a g-string."

....

Damn, I miss that campaign. XD

Dark Archive

Shinmizu wrote:
Set wrote:
Rob Liefield

Sorry, but you mentioned the unmentionable, and now I can't help myself.

The 40 worst Rob Liefeld pictures.

This is soo damn funny (and scary as well!)...


My wife has the double 20 T-shirt and wears it every game night or to Radcon every year.

She drew a picture of her first 1st edition elf character. She was wearing the prototype 2 piece armor panopoly.

Ladies often wonder about our fixation with breasts (and the size thereof). I often wonder why they don't realize their awesome power over us.

Both of my female gamers (my wife and one other) show "them" off.

I guess if your happy with yourself who cares what the pundits think?

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

ArgoForg wrote:
Shinmizu wrote:
Set wrote:
Rob Liefield

Sorry, but you mentioned the unmentionable, and now I can't help myself.

The 40 worst Rob Liefeld pictures.

I think I just laughed myself half to death looking at that. I was never a Liefeld fan when he was considered a 'star' in the field. (Or for that matter, I wasn't originally a Jim Lee fan, but while I think Jim Lee's work has progressed and become very good, I've never had the stomach to give Robbery a second chance.)

I did give Mr. Liefeld a second chance. He did not justify my optimism. :(


Lilith wrote:

Inara, thank you for the thread - your thoughts are quite similar to mine. :)

Amber Scott wrote:
I am also a Female Gamer (though I didn't know until now that I qualified for capital letters -- yippee!) and a Female Game Designer and I like the occasional scantily clad woman as well. What I don't like is a pervasive, unchanging image of the scantily clad fantasy-woman as the only available model in RPGs. Variety, after all, is the spice of life.

You put the words in my mouth! :D

-Liz C., who likes shmexy succubi and naughty pretty boys

And of course we need to differentiate between the scantily clad, defiant sword wielding warrior of might and the scantily clad woman at the foot of the male sword wielder, collar and chain around her neck, gazing adoringly upward. One image empowers, the other, I dare say, objectifies. Thank you, Frazetta, Gor, etc.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:

Ladies often wonder about our fixation with breasts (and the size thereof). I often wonder why they don't realize their awesome power over us.

Both of my female gamers (my wife and one other) show "them" off.

Sounds to me, that the gamer girls in your group fully "realize their awesome power over us." (I am also a guy, hence the "us" part.) :D


Lord Fyre wrote:
Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:

Ladies often wonder about our fixation with breasts (and the size thereof). I often wonder why they don't realize their awesome power over us.

Both of my female gamers (my wife and one other) show "them" off.

Sounds to me, that the gamer girls in your group fully "realize their awesome power over us." (I am also a guy, hence the "us" part.) :D

I solemnly swear to use these powers for the greater good.

... well, at least most of the time...
..... ... .. okay, sometimes...
I think.. ;P


Tharen the Damned wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Elizabeth Cougill wrote:
Snorter wrote:
You can count on MY steel!
and my bow?
And mine axe!
And my...sharpened pencil*!

And my.... my... ummm...hmmmm.... let me see...

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

Inara Red Cloak wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:

Ladies often wonder about our fixation with breasts (and the size thereof). I often wonder why they don't realize their awesome power over us.

Both of my female gamers (my wife and one other) show "them" off.

Sounds to me, that the gamer girls in your group fully "realize their awesome power over us." (I am also a guy, hence the "us" part.) :D

I solemnly swear to use these powers for the greater good.

... well, at least most of the time...
..... ... .. okay, sometimes...
I think.. ;P

But just make sure you use them . . . and often. :D

Silver Crusade

LazarX wrote:

The Warcraft examples however are symbolic and symptomatic on how women charcters have been treated in gaming and fantasy literature. I chose the Warcraft examples mainly for parody and humor value and because they tell that universal story which is NOT confined to MMORGS.

On a related note: the evolution of armor in Soul Calibur. As you can see she's clearly applying her years worth of experience in battle to her choices in attire!

Especially puzzling when you consider the latest female character in the series.


Inara Red Cloak wrote:
Lord Fyre wrote:
Gurubabaramalamaswami wrote:

Ladies often wonder about our fixation with breasts (and the size thereof). I often wonder why they don't realize their awesome power over us.

Both of my female gamers (my wife and one other) show "them" off.

Sounds to me, that the gamer girls in your group fully "realize their awesome power over us." (I am also a guy, hence the "us" part.) :D

I solemnly swear to use these powers for the greater good.

... well, at least most of the time...
..... ... .. okay, sometimes...
I think.. ;P

Actually, I prefer it when my wife lets me use them for the greater good. :p


Nods Sagely at Guru's statement


Yasha0006 wrote:

Nods Sagely at Guru's statement

Sage is good but you can spice up that nod a little more with some rosemary. And garlic. Always garlic.

The Exchange RPG Superstar 2009 Top 8

Mikaze wrote:
LazarX wrote:

The Warcraft examples however are symbolic and symptomatic on how women charcters have been treated in gaming and fantasy literature. I chose the Warcraft examples mainly for parody and humor value and because they tell that universal story which is NOT confined to MMORGS.

On a related note: the evolution of armor in Soul Calibur. As you can see she's clearly applying her years worth of experience in battle to her choices in attire!

Especially puzzling when you consider the latest female character in the series.

By Desna's sweet ass, those are enormous! And impractical. Are you sure that they are getting bigger? Perhaps the entire world is just getting smaller. ;-)

A few years ago I was watching the Korean subtitled version of Saving Private Ryan. The scene where the guy talked about the woman with 38Ds was translated in the subtitles to 34Cs. I guess they thought 38Ds would have been unbelievable to a Korean audience.

51 to 100 of 172 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / Female Gamer Needing Her Voice Heard! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.