| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, in Pathfinder art we have plenty of skimpily dressed, buxom women, and plenty of modestly proportioned, well dressed women. Where are all the buxom, well-dressed women? I do enjoy a full-figured woman that knows how to dress attractively without having to show loads of skin.
As a lesbian gamer, I often struggle with feminism and ideal character appearances. I've been oppressed enough that I rarely know if I'm 'allowed' to find something sexy or if such thoughts are sexist. :|
As a lesbian gamer, I often struggle with feminism and ideal character appearances. I've been oppressed enough that I rarely know if I'm 'allowed' to find something sexy or if such thoughts are sexist. :|
It's your game, right?
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, in Pathfinder art we have plenty of skimpily dressed, buxom women, and plenty of modestly proportioned, well dressed women. Where are all the buxom, well-dressed women? I do enjoy a full-figured woman that knows how to dress attractively without having to show loads of skin.
As a lesbian gamer, I often struggle with feminism and ideal character appearances. I've been oppressed enough that I rarely know if I'm 'allowed' to find something sexy or if such thoughts are sexist. :|
Exactly. This is why I think the topic is silly. Sexuality is a very natural thing, people like things that turn them on. This whole debate has nothing to do with politically correct views on the objectification of the sexes, and everything to do with Americans basically being prudish, Puritanical sticks in the mud. Western Europeans are far more "liberal" than Americans, and they do not get bent out of shape by sex. Heck, they have nudity in commercials. As far as I can tell, they don't see it as "exploitation", they just see it as an acknowledgement of the fact that people have sex, they like pretty people and there you are.
(In the following, the "you" pronoun and its derivatives are the general you, not directed at you, Umbral Reaver, specifically. I know you know this :-) )
American feminism is fine when it addresses inequities in the workplace and issues of violence against women. It goes off the rails when it casts women as weak and exploited victims to male sexuality. If you've ever spent ten minutes with women when they talk about sex, you'd know they are far more vile and graphic than men could ever be. I've had my lesbian friends make me blush with some of their comments, and, as Kirth could tell you, I'm shocked by nothing!
Umbral, let go of any of those concerns you have. You are a woman, don't let society dictate how you should think, how you should respond to things that titillate you, and how you express your sexuality. They don't have that right.
I knew if I waited long enough, Houstonderek would come along and express my opinon more ably than I--on sex, anyway!
I am going to go bust out my Camille Paglia books.
So, in Pathfinder art we have plenty of skimpily dressed, buxom women, and plenty of modestly proportioned, well dressed women. Where are all the buxom, well-dressed women? I do enjoy a full-figured woman that knows how to dress attractively without having to show loads of skin.
As a lesbian gamer, I often struggle with feminism and ideal character appearances. I've been oppressed enough that I rarely know if I'm 'allowed' to find something sexy or if such thoughts are sexist. :|
Exactly. This is why I think the topic is silly. Sexuality is a very natural thing, people like things that turn them on. This whole debate has nothing to do with politically correct views on the objectification of the sexes, and everything to do with Americans basically being prudish, Puritanical sticks in the mud. Western Europeans are far more "liberal" than Americans, and they do not get bent out of shape by sex. Heck, they have nudity in commercials. As far as I can tell, they don't see it as "exploitation", they just see it as an acknowledgement of the fact that people have sex, they like pretty people and there you are.
(In the following, the "you" pronoun and its derivatives are the general you, not directed at you, Umbral Reaver, specifically. I know you know this :-) )
American feminism is fine when it addresses inequities in the workplace and issues of violence against women. It goes off the rails when it casts women as weak and exploited victims to male sexuality. If you've ever spent ten minutes with women when they talk about sex, you'd know they are far more vile and graphic than men could ever be. I've had my lesbian friends make me blush with some of their comments, and, as Kirth could tell you, I'm shocked by nothing!
Umbral, let go of any of those concerns you have. You are a woman, don't let society dictate how you should think, how you should respond to things that titillate you, and how you express your sexuality. They don't have that right.
+Infinity
I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Women can be completely vile and graphic when they talk about sex and still be offended by sexual objectification and exploitation in media and advertising.
Often it isn't the existence of sexual content that's objected to, but that the women in question are portrayed as sexual objects for men's pleasure.The two things aren't directly related.
This kind of thing is why I am often conflicted and confused. Should I be offended when I see women portrayed as sexual objects for womens' pleasure or men portrayed as sexual objects for mens' pleasure?
It is due to dichotomies such as this that I want to study sex and sexuality for a living. Fascinating.
Exactly. This is why I think the topic is silly. Sexuality is a very natural thing, people like things that turn them on. This whole debate has nothing to do with politically correct views on the objectification of the sexes, and everything to do with Americans basically being prudish, Puritanical sticks in the mud. Western Europeans are far more "liberal" than Americans, and they do not get bent out of shape by sex. Heck, they have nudity in commercials. As far as I can tell, they don't see it as "exploitation", they just see it as an acknowledgement of the fact that people have sex, they like pretty people and there you are.
(In the following, the "you" pronoun and its derivatives are the general you, not directed at you, Umbral Reaver, specifically. I know you know this :-) )
American feminism is fine when it addresses inequities in the workplace and issues of violence against women. It goes off the rails when it casts women as weak and exploited victims to male sexuality. If you've ever spent ten minutes with women when they talk about sex, you'd know they are far more vile and graphic than men could ever be. I've had my lesbian friends make me blush with some of their comments, and, as Kirth could tell you, I'm shocked by nothing!
I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Women can be completely vile and graphic when they talk about sex and still be offended by sexual objectification and exploitation in media and advertising.
Often it isn't the existence of sexual content that's objected to, but that the women in question are portrayed as sexual objects for men's pleasure.The two things aren't directly related.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dammit, I love sex in hd!
So, in Pathfinder art we have plenty of skimpily dressed, buxom women, and plenty of modestly proportioned, well dressed women. Where are all the buxom, well-dressed women? I do enjoy a full-figured woman that knows how to dress attractively without having to show loads of skin.
As a lesbian gamer, I often struggle with feminism and ideal character appearances. I've been oppressed enough that I rarely know if I'm 'allowed' to find something sexy or if such thoughts are sexist. :|
Exactly. This is why I think the topic is silly. Sexuality is a very natural thing, people like things that turn them on. This whole debate has nothing to do with politically correct views on the objectification of the sexes, and everything to do with Americans basically being prudish, Puritanical sticks in the mud. Western Europeans are far more "liberal" than Americans, and they do not get bent out of shape by sex. Heck, they have nudity in commercials. As far as I can tell, they don't see it as "exploitation", they just see it as an acknowledgement of the fact that people have sex, they like pretty people and there you are.
(In the following, the "you" pronoun and its derivatives are the general you, not directed at you, Umbral Reaver, specifically. I know you know this :-) )
American feminism is fine when it addresses inequities in the workplace and issues of violence against women. It goes off the rails when it casts women as weak and exploited victims to male sexuality. If you've ever spent ten minutes with women when they talk about sex, you'd know they are far more vile and graphic than men could ever be. I've had my lesbian friends make me blush with some of their comments, and, as Kirth could tell you, I'm shocked by nothing!
Umbral, let go of any of those concerns you have. You are a woman, don't let society dictate how you should think, how you should respond to things that titillate you, and how you express your sexuality. They don't have that right.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Exactly. This is why I think the topic is silly. Sexuality is a very natural thing, people like things that turn them on. This whole debate has nothing to do with politically correct views on the objectification of the sexes, and everything to do with Americans basically being prudish, Puritanical sticks in the mud. Western Europeans are far more "liberal" than Americans, and they do not get bent out of shape by sex. Heck, they have nudity in commercials. As far as I can tell, they don't see it as "exploitation", they just see it as an acknowledgement of the fact that people have sex, they like pretty people and there you are.
(In the following, the "you" pronoun and its derivatives are the general you, not directed at you, Umbral Reaver, specifically. I know you know this :-) )
American feminism is fine when it addresses inequities in the workplace and issues of violence against women. It goes off the rails when it casts women as weak and exploited victims to male sexuality. If you've ever spent ten minutes with women when they talk about sex, you'd know they are far more vile and graphic than men could ever be. I've had my lesbian friends make me blush with some of their comments, and, as Kirth could tell you, I'm shocked by nothing!
I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Women can be completely vile and graphic when they talk about sex and still be offended by sexual objectification and exploitation in media and advertising.
Often it isn't the existence of sexual content that's objected to, but that the women in question are portrayed as sexual objects for men's pleasure.The two things aren't directly related.
I don't even know how to respond here. It smacks of '70s style second wave feminism. Men are to be emasculated and completely shames for having any thoughts about women that aren't "respectful". Advertisers should completely ignore that sex sells. Men are puerile, juvenile animals who must never look when an attractive woman walks past and think "Wow. She's hot".
It's all BS, really. People get offended just to be offended a lot of the time, because the PC crowd tells them they should be. And it's hypocritical. The only reason the Twilight movies are popular is because they objectify a bunch of well build shirtless Metrosexual boy toys as sexual objects for women's pleasure. Seriously.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This kind of thing is why I am often conflicted and confused. Should I be offended when I see women portrayed as sexual objects for womens' pleasure or men portrayed as sexual objects for mens' pleasure?I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Women can be completely vile and graphic when they talk about sex and still be offended by sexual objectification and exploitation in media and advertising.
Often it isn't the existence of sexual content that's objected to, but that the women in question are portrayed as sexual objects for men's pleasure.The two things aren't directly related.
It's easier to just not be offended at all.
It smacks of '70s style second wave feminism. Men are to be emasculated and completely shames for having any thoughts about women that aren't "respectful".
Houston, have you really seen any of that in this thread?
No insult, but when an admitted lesbian says she 1) sees few examples of the type of women she's attracted to in RPGs and 2) has been oppressed in expressing such opinion before, responding that Europeans are less repressed and puritanical, while true, is less than adequate to answer the question raised.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
HD, you're making the same mistake Gailbraithe made (and I do not mean that pejoratively...) You're not addressing the substance of the article: how the author's girlfriend perceived geekdom due in part to male privilege and in part to overzealous defense of that privilege by socially incompetent people.
That's all it's about. And I've seen it first-hand in many instances.
Now, the author does get a bit preachy, and more than a bit hypocritical. But this whole thing isn't about "cover up the sluts on comic book covers"... It's about making an attempt to understand what it's like to be of the gender portrayed in that manner*.
There have been more than two sides to this conversation. A number of women have identified with the issue while also embracing that characters can be sexual. Many times people have said that sexuality is great but there's still something "off".
Now, I'm personally very critical of some of this stuff. You could say I'm offended. But I'm not offended by sexuality, I'm offended by bad writing and one-dimensional characters, who are included to embody sex and ONLY to embody sex. There's a host of good writing that crosses all sorts of "decency" lines that puritans may draw. They're not on trial here (by me).
The people who I'd like to malign are sloppy writers who use sex as a crutch instead of understanding it.
Seriously though, there's no need for you to defend male sexuality. It doesn't need the help, and it's hardly under assault. You'll be doing right by everyone in this conversation if you just make some effort to understand what it must be like to be a girl and walk into a (highly) stereotypical nerd dungeon full of mouth-breathers, the walls bedecked with nigh-porno. If you can grok that, that's all that's being asked. I don't think anyone wants the stuff pulled from the shelves.
* EDIT: Why? So that we don't become the socially incompetent people with ZERO ability to reconcile what appeals to us sexually to an actual flesh-and-blood female person. The article is essentially an instruction manual on how not to scare girls — hence my calling it somewhat hypocritical since it tacitly presumes the entire Kotaku readership is male. He may have been unsuccessful, but I've met many dudes who really need those basic empathy lessons.
|
|
I have to see about an apartment, I'll be back a bit later and address things point by point and give some perspective on where I am coming from in a bit. Y'all raise some interesting points, and make a few valid ones, I think, but I do disagree on a few of them, and may be looking at this very differently.
And, EL, ouch, man. Just ouch ;-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...good stuff...
This.
Could you take a second to look at my second post in this thread, Derek? The one with the three links? The first is an image that I hated. The second was a minor photoshop edit of same image that brought it down from the "this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen!" category to the "I still don't like it much, but whatever" category.
I think whipping out words like "puritanical" to address the issue is really off base, and it's something I see a lot to twist the issue away from the topic actually under consideration.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to see about an apartment, I'll be back a bit later and address things point by point and give some perspective on where I am coming from in a bit. Y'all raise some interesting points, and make a few valid ones, I think, but I do disagree on a few of them, and may be looking at this very differently.
And, EL, ouch, man. Just ouch ;-)
Dude, friend, I really didn't mean it in a bad way.
Try to think of me like a Doctor. ;)
Also, the fact that you're even making an effort to converse instead of being blindly defensive is really heartening. If you don't mind me expanding my point before you reply...
What's described in the article has a lot of baggage around it. I think a lot of guys just launch into defending their tastes and their sexuality, which have been under attack sometimes, like the feminist sub-movement that you mention upthread. I can't fault anyone for defending their right to feel how they feel and like what they like.
It's a general lack of empathy for others which is antithetical to that same individuality. That's the thing that causes dudes to bluster in defense of their own "stuff". Being too ready to have an argument with what you remember a "feminist" saying one time, rushing to defend your privilege, instead of stopping and imagining what it's like to understand what makes someone uneasy.
If you focus on what the experience of being female is like (which should be easy for roleplayers, but for some reason seems not) the seeming paradox of pro-sexuality and pro-feminism becomes a lot easier to understand. Pro-sex, pro-feminists only have a problem with some of these media, it's not a blanket reaction to all sexuality.
We got nuance, son.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, in Pathfinder art we have plenty of skimpily dressed, buxom women, and plenty of modestly proportioned, well dressed women. Where are all the buxom, well-dressed women? I do enjoy a full-figured woman that knows how to dress attractively without having to show loads of skin.
As a lesbian gamer, I often struggle with feminism and ideal character appearances. I've been oppressed enough that I rarely know if I'm 'allowed' to find something sexy or if such thoughts are sexist. :|
The only example that leaps immediately to mind, and it's been a while, is Seelah in a dress from The Sixfold Trials. And maybe the dwarven lady from Seeker of Secrets. Can't recall exactly how practical her armor was, but I think I remember it leaning that way.
That reminds me of every nasty Catch-22 too many people have been all too eager to throw at each other. I remember one of the earlier blowups over Pathfinder fanservice elsewhere had one rather opinionated fellow lecturing a lesbian gamer for reducing her own gender to sexual objects. Can't win for losing.
It's kind of like the "butch" vs. "lipstick" lesbian thing(which shouldn't even be a thing). You have a character that some people would classify as "butch", for whatever reason, some of those people will tear it down for not being fanservicey enough for men, some will hate on it because it somehow implies all lesbians are "butch". You have a character people would call "lipstick lesbian" or "femme", and people will rag on it as catering primarily to dudes. And all the while other people are left wondering "What's wrong with someone being either? Or neither?"
Can't help but think that a wider variety of range in portrayals of people of the same sexuality, along with a wider range of positive portrayals of different body types, cultures, ethnicities, dress styles, etc. could curb some of that. At the very least there'd be something for everyone.
*rampant "airquotes" due to the belief that the use of those words and what they mean seem to depend primarily on the person using them, and that they're labels with a ton of baggage of their own.
(wow, sorry, that was an accidental tangent. looking back, I think most of that grief comes from the comics and videogame scene)
I guess Imrijka doesn't count for some reason?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess Imrijka doesn't count for some reason?
Not until she gets a bio. >:(
;_;
I actually quite like the Imrijka. Though even with her there's been practicality complaints, what with the "boob window" in the armor. I remember someone hating on the art because they found every other detail about her perfect except for that bit.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it is a combination of the name (which sounds gender neutral, even if it might not be), and your avatar, which looks very feminine. Again, it might not be, but only being able to see the face might help draw the wrong conclusion.Nah, imma dude.
I wish I knew what it was that keeps getting me mistaken for female. For srs.
That strikes me as a bit of stretch. Gotta be something else.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I had the same reaction to Ms. Reaver's post as Houstonderek: a gay female second-guessing what she's attracted to is a pretty good example of the kind of headf!~+ that some aspects of feminism seems to engender.
I reread the article and I'm still not terribly impressed. In fact, the thought occured to me that, if we as a species could reduce "male privelege"* to sexy images in comic books and video games, the world would be a much better place.
But, maybe, I am not as immersed in geek culture as the rest of you (I am not claiming that I am not a dork--I spend all day on a fantasy rpg website!).
Disclaimer: I have never bought a comic book or a video game due to the sexiness of the cover. In fact, I can't remember the last time that an illustration gave me a boner. I am an adult, when I want to "objectify" women, I just watch porn, which I like because, as David Cross put it, it helps me masturbate.
--
*Not that I am denying that male privelege exists, I just don't think this is an example thereof.
This kind of thing is why I am often conflicted and confused. Should I be offended when I see women portrayed as sexual objects for womens' pleasure or men portrayed as sexual objects for mens' pleasure?I'm not sure it's quite that simple. Women can be completely vile and graphic when they talk about sex and still be offended by sexual objectification and exploitation in media and advertising.
Often it isn't the existence of sexual content that's objected to, but that the women in question are portrayed as sexual objects for men's pleasure.The two things aren't directly related.
I think that there is nothing wrong with you enjoying images of attractive women. Sure, it's basically a sex object. Sex objects aren't necessarily bad.
I happen to agree with pretty much everything Evil Lincoln is saying here. I find this materiel offensive for much the same reasons he does. However, even though I find it offensive, I still find it enjoyable, and I don't see it necessary to rail against it vehemently.
Male Privelege Throughout the Ages:
EDIT: Just wanted to make clear that I am not "defending my stuff." If Paizo, or any other geek corporation (or all), decides that from hereonin they're only going to put non-sexy women in their artwork, I wouldn't care.
Fair points, el. Still, the rampant hypocrisy of the original article offends me (and hd as well methinks) to the point that it loses me and for all the pleas for understanding it being made, some must go in the opposite direction as well-while I understand the base argument, this article simply isn't the best mouthpiece, and extrapolations upon it are going to make those who using it sound like they are saying something they are not.
HD, you're making the same mistake Gailbraithe made (and I do not mean that pejoratively...) You're not addressing the substance of the article: how the author's girlfriend perceived geekdom due in part to male privilege and in part to overzealous defense of that privilege by socially incompetent people.
That's all it's about. And I've seen it first-hand in many instances.
Now, the author does get a bit preachy, and more than a bit hypocritical. But this whole thing isn't about "cover up the sluts on comic book covers"... It's about making an attempt to understand what it's like to be of the gender portrayed in that manner*.
There have been more than two sides to this conversation. A number of women have identified with the issue while also embracing that characters can be sexual. Many times people have said that sexuality is great but there's still something "off".
Now, I'm personally very critical of some of this stuff. You could say I'm offended. But I'm not offended by sexuality, I'm offended by bad writing and one-dimensional characters, who are included to embody sex and ONLY to embody sex. There's a host of good writing that crosses all sorts of "decency" lines that puritans may draw. They're not on trial here (by me).
The people who I'd like to malign are sloppy writers who use sex as a crutch instead of understanding it.
Seriously though, there's no need for you to defend male sexuality. It doesn't need the help, and it's hardly under assault. You'll be doing right by everyone in this conversation if you just make some effort to understand what it must be like to be a girl and walk into a (highly) stereotypical nerd dungeon full of mouth-breathers, the walls bedecked with nigh-porno. If you can grok that, that's all that's being asked. I don't think anyone wants the stuff pulled from the shelves.
* EDIT: Why? So that we don't become the socially incompetent people with ZERO ability to reconcile what appeals to us sexually to an actual flesh-and-blood female person. The article is...
I think a lot of people are missing the subtle difference of being admired and being a trophy. Sexualization is just fine, and maybe even a little objectification is fun here and there.
The problem is that for women, the portrayals of women in media being an object vastly outweigh being an equal. It sends this weird message that a man needs to take care of a woman, that a woman needs a man to take care of her.
In opposite land, it would be the equivalent of a man walking into a store to get some clothes and the women working there would question why he's there without a woman. They would ask him if he can really dress himself. If he asks what's with all the silly accessories, they would tell him that he doesn't understand what's it's like to be an empowered man that can dress himself. Not saying that this doesn't / can't happen in our own society, but it's rare. However in opposite land, this would be the DEFAULT situation. Men should expect that many will dismiss them as not knowing what he's doing based on his gender. How dare a man make a decision without the input of sensible woman!?
The gender discrimination is fading, but it's still there.
What bothers me here is that your "opposite land" easily describes my childhood-young adulthood home, with a slight gap for when my mom got married and divorced.
I think a lot of people are missing the subtle difference of being admired and being a trophy. Sexualization is just fine, and maybe even a little objectification is fun here and there.
The problem is that for women, the portrayals of women in media being an object vastly outweigh being an equal. It sends this weird message that a man needs to take care of a woman, that a woman needs a man to take care of her.
In opposite land, it would be the equivalent of a man walking into a store to get some clothes and the women working there would question why he's there without a woman. They would ask him if he can really dress himself. If he asks what's with all the silly accessories, they would tell him that he doesn't understand what's it's like to be an empowered man that can dress himself. Not saying that this doesn't / can't happen in our own society, but it's rare. However in opposite land, this would be the DEFAULT situation. Men should expect that many will dismiss them as not knowing what he's doing based on his gender. How dare a man make a decision without the input of sensible woman!?
The gender discrimination is fading, but it's still there.
The problem is that for women, the portrayals of women in media being an object vastly outweigh being an equal. It sends this weird message that a man needs to take care of a woman, that a woman needs a man to take care of her.
Ion, I can't speak for all men, but I have never, never looked at a hot woman being objectified and thought "I want to take care of her." Unless "take care of" is a euphemism.
|
|
...good stuff...This.
Could you take a second to look at my second post in this thread, Derek? The one with the three links? The first is an image that I hated. The second was a minor photoshop edit of same image that brought it down from the "this is the stupidest thing I've ever seen!" category to the "I still don't like it much, but whatever" category.
I think whipping out words like "puritanical" to address the issue is really off base, and it's something I see a lot to twist the issue away from the topic actually under consideration.
Ok, I can see your point about the practicality of her outfit, and your change does address that. But, like Kirth, it took me a solid three minutes to even see the difference between the two pics, to be honest. But then, I'm really not a breast man anyway, so it isn't my natural focus when looking at the female form.
Actually, I was more bothered about the improbable pose she had, and how off balance she looked.
Trust me, I'm not trying to marginalize anyone's concerns here, I just worry that sometimes people just look for things to be offended by. Society has made a lot of mistakes overreacting to things (everything from Prohibition to the PAtriot Act in recent times), so I get nervous when people go on a crusade (not that you are, by a long shot - I feel your concerns have a lot more to do with art not being silly than not being juvenile).
And, to add to what others have said, yes, your addition does improve the illo, more practical without being less appealing.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of people are missing the subtle difference of being admired and being a trophy. Sexualization is just fine, and maybe even a little objectification is fun here and there.
The problem is that for women, the portrayals of women in media being an object vastly outweigh being an equal. It sends this weird message that a man needs to take care of a woman, that a woman needs a man to take care of her.
In opposite land, it would be the equivalent of a man walking into a store to get some clothes and the women working there would question why he's there without a woman. They would ask him if he can really dress himself. If he asks what's with all the silly accessories, they would tell him that he doesn't understand what's it's like to be an empowered man that can dress himself. Not saying that this doesn't / can't happen in our own society, but it's rare. However in opposite land, this would be the DEFAULT situation. Men should expect that many will dismiss them as not knowing what he's doing based on his gender. How dare a man make a decision without the input of sensible woman!?
The gender discrimination is fading, but it's still there.
Considering that I'm going through a situation concerning my ex and my child, I'd suggest you tell the courts that women don't need men to take care of them. I need to take care of my daughter, it's my job being a father. I shouldn't have to take care of my ex. But, our government doesn't agree.
And, frankly, more geeks should bring a woman with them when they shop. Seriously. Especially if they ever really want a woman to notice them...
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess Imrijka doesn't count for some reason?Not until she gets a bio. >:(
;_;
I actually quite like the Imrijka. Though even with her there's been practicality complaints, what with the "boob window" in the armor. I remember someone hating on the art because they found every other detail about her perfect except for that bit.
That strikes me as a bit of stretch. Gotta be something else.I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest it is a combination of the name (which sounds gender neutral, even if it might not be), and your avatar, which looks very feminine. Again, it might not be, but only being able to see the face might help draw the wrong conclusion.Nah, imma dude.
I wish I knew what it was that keeps getting me mistaken for female. For srs.
Yeah, I assumed you were a woman as well. *shrug*
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've long been of the opinion that the feminist and masculist labels are sort of useless.
Both "sides" have extremist "militant" elements that nobody really takes seriously, whereas sides that advocate for equality have a whole lot more in common than you'd judge by the labels. But the militant wings are ever the beloved straw men for the opposition — even well meaning people merely defending their personal preferences. Well, let's knock it off. Let's talk to/about all the feminists, not just cherry pick the least nuanced ones. (Likewise the reverse, not presuming all men are chauvinists... pro-feminist males face a bit of discrimination themselves. I should know.)
Some people would call me feminist or pro-feminist because of my views, but really I'm an egalitarian who recognizes a disparity in the way my culture treats women. I think some of the masculist movements, such as father's rights (thanks for reminding me HD) are really serious and do get overshadowed because people assume male privilege extends to all sectors. It does not.
All of these issues are solved by a healthy attitude toward sexuality and respect for individual's rights. I think the "offending" stuff (and we're being much too generic here) is the stuff that tramples on the individuality — that women aren't people. Superfunsexytime can actually empower women if they are treated as equal individuals (and the sex is better too).
Men occasionally get a taste of what institutional sexism is like. Father's rights are a great example. But if that cause resonates with you, imagine the wrong assumptions of your gender role extending to all avenues of life, even something as simple as stepping into the local hobby shop. It's all wrong, for both genders.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to see about an apartment, I'll be back a bit later and address things point by point and give some perspective on where I am coming from in a bit. Y'all raise some interesting points, and make a few valid ones, I think, but I do disagree on a few of them, and may be looking at this very differently.
And, EL, ouch, man. Just ouch ;-)
Dude, friend, I really didn't mean it in a bad way.
Try to think of me like a Doctor. ;)
Also, the fact that you're even making an effort to converse instead of being blindly defensive is really heartening. If you don't mind me expanding my point before you reply...
What's described in the article has a lot of baggage around it. I think a lot of guys just launch into defending their tastes and their sexuality, which have been under attack sometimes, like the feminist sub-movement that you mention upthread. I can't fault anyone for defending their right to feel how they feel and like what they like.
It's a general lack of empathy for others which is antithetical to that same individuality. That's the thing that causes dudes to bluster in defense of their own "stuff". Being too ready to have an argument with what you remember a "feminist" saying one time, rushing to defend your privilege, instead of stopping and imagining what it's like to understand what makes someone uneasy.
If you focus on what the experience of being female is like (which should be easy for roleplayers, but for some reason seems not) the seeming paradox of pro-sexuality and pro-feminism becomes a lot easier to understand. Pro-sex, pro-feminists only have a problem with some of these media, it's not a blanket reaction to all sexuality.
We got nuance, son.
I get that.
My issue is mostly that, by and large, our hobby attracts a lot of misfits. People with little or no social awareness. Nature of the beast. A bigger problem, to me, isn't the artwork, it's the scene.
(Jess, your input would be cool for this next part)
I'm going to create the "typical dork at the FLGS gaming room". Let's call him, say, Mike, nice generic name. Dude is creepy, slovenly, inappropriate, stinky, and the classic image a lot of non-gamers have of our hobby. The type has zero ability to speak with a woman without coming off as a sex offender (and, after my horrible last experience in prison, might just be), constantly makes just bizarre comments and generally is really annoying and a buzz kill. And there are a lot of them in our hobby.
An aside: in Federal prison, RPGs are described as "what the chomos (sex offenders - shortened from "child molester") play". And that's system wide. That's the rep we have there. There were guys who love playing that wouldn't until I went back because they didn't want the chomo label. When I got there, I could safely run a table because my rep was established during my first swing through, and they guys still there knew I wasn't a sex offender and played D&D.
So, our hobby has an image problem in a lot of places, not just with women.
When I was released, I saw someone called out Shimoko Pedobear for always making "loli" characters and for just being creepy in general. And this community, more or less, defended him. And, honestly, his type does a lot more damage, image wise, to our hobby than some guy who likes looking at pics of cleavage on obviously of age (if impractical) women.
So, I just scratch my head at a lot of this stuff. The game is what it is (D&D style fantasy roleplay), a violent goofy hobby with pics of chainmail bikinis. If we make it too "female friendly" (whatever that means), at what point to we start losing the immature sexually repressed male market? Which, if we're honest, is a big part of the market. Most women, like most men, are never going to be gamers. Most of the women I see socially think it's cute that I still play make believe with my buddies (and every group I play with other than my Wednesday game has at least one female player, btw), but they have zero interest in joining.
So, yeah, if we're discussing how impractical and unbelievable women's outfits can be portrayed, I'm down for that discussion, and probably will agree in most instances.
If we're discussing making a hobby more accessible for women, but we don't address the actual misfits, pedos and creepy weirdos that make up a good chunk of the hobby, and how to get rid of them, I really can't add much. It isn't the pics and stuff that bug me, it's the actual people in our hobby I see a lot of that creep me out, and sometimes make ME want to find something else to do.
I think that there is nothing wrong with you enjoying images of attractive women. Sure, it's basically a sex object. Sex objects aren't necessarily bad.
I happen to agree with pretty much everything Evil Lincoln is saying here. I find this materiel offensive for much the same reasons he does. However, even though I find it offensive, I still find it enjoyable, and I don't see it necessary to rail against it vehemently.
Kelsey, I had thought you'd be more sensitive to pronouns. You hit a nerve right there. It's not the "sex" part that bothers me, it's the "object". You called a whole class of people "it" in that last post. To me, that's the problem. To make an object of someone tramples on their individuality.
You have a valid point, in that sometimes just sex is appropriate. In pornography, sex IS the theme. That's great! What I hate to see is that in mainstream culture, it becomes okay to write the porno-level script and motivations into the female characters, but male characters get terse monologues that nobody would accept from their mustachioed counterparts. What it does is presume that women exist for sex. Not all things do this, I'm attacking a subset of bad writing. Bad writers learn their female personality traits from the porn they "use". Non-writers (and I meet these people all the time) define every woman they meet from how they see women behave in porn. This is ridiculous.
If you're a dude and you're reading this and saying "I'm not like that" you're probably right. But you're also not alert to just how pervasive it is in people not-you. The s&~# I see my girlfriend deal with, the presumptions made about her intelligence and character based solely on her gender... that is what makes me so involved. If I had to face that every day, I would have had a total breakdown years ago.
EDIT: Paizo's art sometimes crosses the line just a little, but really, Paizo's writing almost never does. In general, women are people in Paizo writing, and so I don't really consider them in this judgement.
I also want to make it clear that what I've been arguing here is my personal values. I don't expect everyone to conform to my personal values, but sometimes I want to scream them out. Sadly, I've resorted to lambasting a "generic" offense, and so people are going to imagine that I'm attacking this that or the other thing. I guess I'll try to locate some specific examples so we don't fall into that trap.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's another aspect we haven't touched on that's potentially telling. OK, someone says, "Ew! Those geeks just reek of male privilege!" And so we compare two guys:
It's important to note that the actual behavior of these two guys is identical. But guy #1 is physically unattractive and socially awkward, so he gets branded not only a geek, but likely a pervo. Guy #2 is attractive to women, so he gets let off the hook and excuses are made for his "geek" behavior AND for his male privileged commentary.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The game is what it is (D&D style fantasy roleplay), a violent goofy hobby with pics of chainmail bikinis. If we make it too "female friendly" (whatever that means), at what point to we start losing the immature sexually repressed male market?
It's a false choice. Women as people are still sexy people.
Paizo art struggles a little with being 100% female-empathic sometimes, but by and large I can hold it up as what things should look like. Some strong women, some appealing women, some strong and appealing women, some neither. The same as men. Some sexual men, some strong men, some neither... etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If we make it too "female friendly" (whatever that means), at what point do we start losing the immature sexually repressed male market? Which, if we're honest, is a big part of the market.
Houston, you can't really think that sweaty tween boys are such a huge segment of the market that RPGs as a whole are in danger if they don't serve that market. Every pro-male (horrible oversimplification, I know) viewer that has looked at Jess' edit hasn't been able to see the difference for at least a few minutes. That tells me that a female friendly game packaging wouldn't even be noticed by your typical male gamer.
A few pages back, Mark Smylie's artwork was mentioned. I'm male, but his comic Artesia strikes me as a nearly perfect example of "female friendly." When Artesia fights in battle, she does it in realistic armor. When she has sex, she looks like a human being doing it, not a screaming rubber-spined tit-monkey. I can't see how a similar design ethic in an RPG would drive anyone away.
There's another aspect we haven't touched on that's potentially telling. OK, someone says, "Ew! Those geeks just reek of male privilege!" And so we compare two guys:
Guy #1 is fat and plays video games all night because he doesn't need to study as much, and says things like, "Hey, baby, nice rack!" Is he a geek? Totally. Is he inappropriate? Totally. No debate here.
Guy #2 is tall and good-looking, but he's a slacker and plays video games when he should be studying. He also loves to say, "Hey, baby, nice rack!" -- but he uses a stoner voice instead of a Monte Python voice when he says it. Is he a geek? Most women say, "No way! He's a rebel, and just needs those dumb games to blow off steam!" Is he inappropriate? I'd totally say yes, but most women say "You don't understand, that's just Joey! He doesn't mean anything by it!" It's important to note that the actual behavior of these two guys is identical. But guy #1 is physically unattractive and socially awkward, so he gets branded not only a geek, but likely a pervo. Guy #2 is attractive to women, so he gets let off the hook and excuses are made for his "geek" behavior AND for his male privileged commentary.
Have you ever seen that happen, KIrth?
But seriously: Yes, one of the effects of having such a culturally pervasive male bias/entitlement is that plenty of women fall for it too. That doesn't tell me it's not a problem.
Have you ever seen that happen, Kirth?
Frequently.
I agree male entitlement is a problem, but it's not one that can be adequately addressed by selectively condemning unattractive people for it, or just the people who enjoy certain hobbies, or both. That's like me saying "Bigotry is wrong, so I'm going to kill anyone with blonde hair who makes a bigoted statement. Redheads and brunettes and old people with white hair all get free passes, even though we sort of pay lip service to the fact that it's wrong for them, too."
I know I have. Kirth just described the bulk of my college experience.
There's another aspect we haven't touched on that's potentially telling. OK, someone says, "Ew! Those geeks just reek of male privilege!" And so we compare two guys:
Guy #1 is fat and plays video games all night because he doesn't need to study as much, and says things like, "Hey, baby, nice rack!" Is he a geek? Totally. Is he inappropriate? Totally. No debate here.
Guy #2 is tall and good-looking, but he's a slacker and plays video games when he should be studying. He also loves to say, "Hey, baby, nice rack!" -- but he uses a stoner voice instead of a Monte Python voice when he says it. Is he a geek? Most women say, "No way! He's a rebel, and just needs those dumb games to blow off steam!" Is he inappropriate? I'd totally say yes, but most women say "You don't understand, that's just Joey! He doesn't mean anything by it!" It's important to note that the actual behavior of these two guys is identical. But guy #1 is physically unattractive and socially awkward, so he gets branded not only a geek, but likely a pervo. Guy #2 is attractive to women, so he gets let off the hook and excuses are made for his "geek" behavior AND for his male privileged commentary.
Have you ever seen that happen, KIrth?
But seriously: Yes, one of the effects of having such a culturally pervasive male bias/entitlement is that plenty of women fall for it too. That doesn't tell me it's not a problem.
Indeed. I have no idea why this happens...
I think a lot of people are missing the subtle difference of being admired and being a trophy. Sexualization is just fine, and maybe even a little objectification is fun here and there.
The problem is that for women, the portrayals of women in media being an object vastly outweigh being an equal. It sends this weird message that a man needs to take care of a woman, that a woman needs a man to take care of her.
In opposite land, it would be the equivalent of a man walking into a store to get some clothes and the women working there would question why he's there without a woman. They would ask him if he can really dress himself. If he asks what's with all the silly accessories, they would tell him that he doesn't understand what's it's like to be an empowered man that can dress himself. Not saying that this doesn't / can't happen in our own society, but it's rare. However in opposite land, this would be the DEFAULT situation. Men should expect that many will dismiss them as not knowing what he's doing based on his gender. How dare a man make a decision without the input of sensible woman!?
The gender discrimination is fading, but it's still there.
Considering that I'm going through a situation concerning my ex and my child, I'd suggest you tell the courts that women don't need men to take care of them. I need to take care of my daughter, it's my job being a father. I shouldn't have to take care of my ex. But, our government doesn't agree.
And, frankly, more geeks should bring a woman with them when they shop. Seriously. Especially if they ever really want a woman to notice them...
As ever, I would like more examples of female friendly stuff in both this venue as well as erotica. I just picked up seven warriors, and I am a huge fan of tales of the dragon guard. I believe both are french. I also loved battleaxes, although I'm not sure you can find it nowadays. And I would add there is nothing wrong with loud, voluptuous, acrobatic sex. :-)
If we make it too "female friendly" (whatever that means), at what point do we start losing the immature sexually repressed male market? Which, if we're honest, is a big part of the market.Houston, you can't really think that sweaty tween boys are such a huge segment of the market that RPGs as a whole are in danger if they don't serve that market. Every pro-male (horrible oversimplification, I know) viewer that has looked at Jess' edit hasn't been able to see the difference for at least a few minutes. That tells me that a female friendly game packaging wouldn't even be noticed by your typical male gamer.
A few pages back, Mark Smylie's artwork was mentioned. I'm male, but his comic Artesia strikes me as a nearly perfect example of "female friendly." When Artesia fights in battle, she does it in realistic armor. When she has sex, she looks like a human being doing it, not a screaming rubber-spined tit-monkey. I can't see how a similar design ethic in an RPG would drive anyone away.
I think that there is nothing wrong with you enjoying images of attractive women. Sure, it's basically a sex object. Sex objects aren't necessarily bad.
I happen to agree with pretty much everything Evil Lincoln is saying here. I find this materiel offensive for much the same reasons he does. However, even though I find it offensive, I still find it enjoyable, and I don't see it necessary to rail against it vehemently.
Kelsey, I had thought you'd be more sensitive to pronouns. You hit a nerve right there. It's not the "sex" part that bothers me, it's the "object". You called a whole class of people "it" in that last post. To me, that's the problem. To make an object of someone tramples on their individuality.
You have a valid point, in that sometimes just sex is appropriate. In pornography, sex IS the theme. That's great! What I hate to see is that in mainstream culture, it becomes okay to write the porno-level script and motivations into the female characters, but male characters get terse monologues that nobody would accept from their mustachioed counterparts. What it does is presume that women exist for sex. Not all things do this, I'm attacking a subset of bad writing. Bad writers learn their female personality traits from the porn they "use". Non-writers (and I meet these people all the time) define every woman they meet from how they see women behave in porn. This is ridiculous.
I get that, and I'm not saying it isn't wrong. What I'm saying is that a bit of objectification isn't horrible. Of course it isn't right to objectify all women for sex. A couple fictional women, however? I'm bothered a lot more by one dimensional writing than by sex objects, and Paizo generally doesn't have such bad writing.
Basically, I have an issue with women existing for sex, but not with a fictional character who has a lot of sex appeal and a neat personality both, and could be seen as a sex object, which is what Paizo provides.
No, I'm not a dude. However, I'm transgendered, so I admittedly don't have to deal with these assumptions.
Just my opinion Kels, but once you get to the "a lot of sex appeal and a neat personality both", it's not objectification; objects don't have personalities.
I know that sounds like a flip comment, but I think it's a real (and very basic to the conversation) distinction. As Evil Lincoln points out, sex appeal and good character work are by no means mutually exclusive.
I guess you could have a point there. I define sex object as any woman who turns me on, so the word doesn't bug me at all. I guess I'm defining it very differently than you are.
Well, I didn't major in semiotics (or even finish college, to be honest), so these are personal definitions, but yes, in my brain there's a difference between a sex object and a sex symbol. What are that difference? Like the old line about pornography, I may not be able to define it, but I know it when i see it.
That was all I was getting at, Kelsey. I hope you don't mind my acknowledging that your background gives you a unique perspective in this matter.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What bothers me here is that your "opposite land" easily describes my childhood-young adulthood home, with a slight gap for when my mom got married and divorced.
Yeah it does happen. There are women out there who think that they should control men, and there are women who think that men are their little boy toys. There are even women out there who think of men as a separate subspecies that need to be controlled.
I do not like to associate with those kinds of women. I don't know if it's some radical retaliation against oppression or sexism, but it's no better.
The difference is that men objectifying is more mainstream. When the media portrays a woman taking care of a man as the man being emasculated, but shows that a man taking care of a woman just means that the woman has a man that cares for her, women are not treated as equals to men.
Though it certainly has gotten better over the years, there's still some hurdles left to jump.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Slight threadjack: are there any females out there who consider sexy female subjects in art to be female empowerment? I mean in a sort of reverse James Bond kind of way (women want him, men want to be him). Female sex appeal is a kind of power, especially power over men. Does this power dynamic at all play into the power fantasy that is RPGs? Now I am not at all suggesting that women's only value or only power is in sex appeal, and I acknowledge that most women, while they consider sexuality a component of their identity, would not want it to be considered the primary defining component of their identity.
Considering that I'm going through a situation concerning my ex and my child, I'd suggest you tell the courts that women don't need men to take care of them. I need to take care of my daughter, it's my job being a father. I shouldn't have to take care of my ex. But, our government doesn't agree.
Admittedly some people like to be taken care of. Nothing like social pressure to back one up. I'm sorry to hear that our government which is still mostly of the "Men take care of women" variety is causing you those problems.
The social stigma hurts both ways.
And, frankly, more geeks should bring a woman with them when they shop. Seriously. Especially if they ever really want a woman to notice them...
At least men can get themselves clothes without being looked upon as some rare creature. Seriously though, it's less about what someone wears, it's how they carry themselves. Someone who slouches, lacks social etiquette, and doesn't take care of their own self comes off as needy. As a man, how would you feel if an unattractive woman who acted like a slob expected you to ask her on a date?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would say the larger problem is that he is expected to ask at all. Why can't she ask him (and if she is so slovenly as you state, run the risk of being turned down) ? Isn't part of equality stepping away from such stereotypical behavior? This is another area where the bulk of feminism falls apart for me.
Considering that I'm going through a situation concerning my ex and my child, I'd suggest you tell the courts that women don't need men to take care of them. I need to take care of my daughter, it's my job being a father. I shouldn't have to take care of my ex. But, our government doesn't agree.
Admittedly some people like to be taken care of. Nothing like social pressure to back one up. I'm sorry to hear that our government which is still mostly of the "Men take care of women" variety is causing you those problems.
The social stigma hurts both ways.
At least men can get themselves clothes without being looked upon as some rare creature. Seriously though, it's less about what someone wears, it's how they carry themselves. Someone who slouches, lacks social etiquette, and doesn't take care of their own self comes off as needy. As a man, how would you feel if an unattractive woman who acted like a slob expected you to ask her on a date?
And, frankly, more geeks should bring a woman with them when they shop. Seriously. Especially if they ever really want a woman to notice them...