You'd also be on very thin ice if you didn't hire the most qualified candidate for the job just because you didn't like how they dressed - there's a whole world of discrimination lawsuits wrapped up in that.
No.
FWIW, whenever anyone says "reverse [whatever]", I automatically think: "Oh, there's someone who was born into privilege. They think that they're special; and so any [whatever] that's suddenly aimed at them when it's 'supposed' to be directed at others (like discrimination), or vice-versa (like pandering)? That's shocking and 'reverse'. Whereas everyone else is just supposed to suck it up as their lot in life. What an [redacted]."
ETA: And I say that as an attractive white male. It's not that I don't have privileges; it's just that I appreciate them.
Not at all.
This thread is marketing. Pure and simple. It's "Hey look, I want to make a difference!"
Instead of pandering to the "I like T&A!" crowd, it's pandering to the "T&A is offensive!" crowd - reversing the pandering.
It's not actually making a difference. This exact subject has been debated numerous times on this forum, several times recently.
Instead of creating a thread to draw attention to your new-found desire to change, you could, oh, I don't know, read the many previous threads on this subject AND ACTUALLY CHANGE.
And I say that as someone that thinks this entire situation would resolve itself quite simply if people would actually NOT buy that which bothers them (instead of buying it and complaining about it), and can the double standards - i.e. if one book from one publisher has 120 examples of offensive art, and another book from another publisher has just 10, being an apologist for the "lesser offender" is ridiculous. Hold them both equally accountable. If it's a problem, it's a problem regardless of the number of offenses.
This happens all the time, and people keep making excuses for the publisher they like, while castigating the publisher they don't like.
It's hypocritical, to say the least.
Stop buying things that bother you. If we agree there's a problem, and we stop supporting those that promulgate that problem, the problem goes away, and we make it clear that we don't want that.
Not at all.
This thread is marketing. Pure and simple. It's "Hey look, I want to make a difference!"
Instead of pandering to the "I like T&A!" crowd, it's pandering to the "T&A is offensive!" crowd - reversing the pandering.
It's not actually making a difference. This exact subject has been debated numerous times on this forum, several times recently.
Instead of creating a thread to draw attention to your new-found desire to change, you could, oh, I don't know, read the many previous threads on this subject AND ACTUALLY CHANGE.
And I say that as someone that thinks this entire situation would resolve itself quite simply if people would actually NOT buy that which bothers them (instead of buying it and complaining about it), and can the double standards - i.e. if one book from one publisher has 120 examples of offensive art, and another book from another publisher has just 10, being an apologist for the "lesser offender" is ridiculous. Hold them both equally accountable. If it's a problem, it's a problem regardless of the number of offenses.
This happens all the time, and people keep making excuses for the publisher they like, while castigating the publisher they don't like.
It's hypocritical, to say the least.
Stop buying things that bother you. If we agree there's a problem, and we stop supporting those that promulgate that problem, the problem goes away, and we make it clear that we don't want that.
Brian, I am pretty sure I wrote this thread with the reason to ask people on their opinion on something that many see, but often isn't commented about. You see pretty angry about this topic in general for reason I don't know our care to understand. If you don't like me personally or LPJ Design, fine. That is your right to do so. When you start telling people why I did this or why did that, then you have crossed the line. Basically everything you accuse me of in the statement above is EXACTLY what you seem to be doing. So thanks for the great insight about yourself and what your motives really are by writing your post.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it might be wise to take it down a notch, guys. I haven't ever seen threads psychoanalyzing others' reasons for posting what they did go anywhere good. :-)
I think it might be wise to take it down a notch, guys. I haven't ever seen threads psychoanalyzing others' reasons for posting what they did go anywhere good. :-)
I can't argue with that Jessica, but it's worth noting that LPJ didn't mention art in his original post. Art was brought up early by others (myself included) and has dominated the conversation since, but personally I think it's only the most visible difference you can make.
Using my own purchases from LPJ as an example, I'll say this. I haven't bought any of the NeoExodus stuff because I don't like Image comics, so I find RPGs with Image comic style art a turn off, no insult. I have bought Armada, Debatable Actions and Trade Routes. They all have covers of what appear to be public domain paintings, but here's the thing: I bought them because I like fiddling with variant systems, not because the cover art was inoffensive.
I guess I'm still yammering on about how the gender divide is a very simple way of talking about marketing and advertising
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This used to be a good and constructive thread, with minimal finger pointing and a lot of interesting suggestions.
I suggest that those who want to have a gender/political discussion start a new thread.
I can not see how it is a bad thing if in a Company is providing products people want even if you perceive the companies motives to be to make money rather than something that is altruistic.
You see pretty angry about this topic in general for reason I don't know our care to understand.
Not angry in the least.
If you don't like me personally or LPJ Design, fine.
Not at all what this is about.
That is your right to do so. When you start telling people why I did this or why did that, then you have crossed the line. Basically everything you accuse me of in the statement above is EXACTLY what you seem to be doing. So thanks for the great insight about yourself and what your motives really are by writing your post.
God forbid, a line.
You claim this "often isn't commented about", yet there's TONS of recent discussion about these very matters. If you care about the subject, and want to do something about it, then actually do it, instead of all the posturing (and that goes for any publisher that wants to wax on about this).
Don't apologize for the "exploitative" art, and then keep doing it. Either embrace it, or stop. It's really simple.
I can not see how it is a bad thing if in a Company is providing products people want even if you perceive the companies motives to be to make money rather than something that is altruistic.
I didn't say it's bad.
I basically said, "just do it, already" instead of hyping it.
Now fair is fair, here is our Human Inquisitor Oleg Ilyanovik. What do you think about his appearance?
I'm not saying it's a good or bad picture, it just got me to think of this and that it might a good read for illustrators and publishers:
http://www.comicsbulletin.com/columns/2486/wheres-thebeef--the-myth-of-male -objectification-in-superhero-comics/| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty remarkable how someone has hijacked this thread to tell the OP to fix his art already, when that doesn't even answer the question (unless they're a she or there was a telepathic question that I couldn't hear). Wouldn't it be nice if it went back on topic?
So first, I would like to hear a few comments from the female fan base and learn specifically what have RPG companies done very right and very wrong to help get you interested in what they were doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not saying it's a good or bad picture, it just got me to think of this and that it might a good read for illustrators and publishers:
http://www.comicsbulletin.com/columns/2486/wheres-thebeef--the-myth-of-male -objectification-in-superhero-comics/
I think you mean this link.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think you mean this link.I'm not saying it's a good or bad picture, it just got me to think of this and that it might a good read for illustrators and publishers:
http://www.comicsbulletin.com/columns/2486/wheres-thebeef--the-myth-of-male -objectification-in-superhero-comics/
TBH the only time I've seen anything approaching an equivalent portraying of men was when reading Sandman #50. (The illustrator, P. Craig Russell is openly gay.)
First the Caliph walks through his harem of women, and, sure, it's a harem, but all the women are just sort of standing there in their veils and harem pants. Then the Caliph walks through his harem of men, and the picture was drawn so sensually that, speaking as a straight dude, it made me feel weird.
Don't get me wrong, I love Russell's art. My point is, I don't think most men in our culture have the slightest experience with what objectification feels like.
Anyhow, to distill all my blathering about the actual subject of the thread into one last post, I don't think there's any one X-factor of game design that will compel female gamers to snatch your product off the shelves. I do think that if you avoid typical art and story tropes, then you're doing it the right way and word will get around.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's pretty remarkable how someone has hijacked this thread to tell the OP to fix his art already, when that doesn't even answer the question (unless they're a she or there was a telepathic question that I couldn't hear). Wouldn't it be nice if it went back on topic?
So first, I would like to hear a few comments from the female fan base and learn specifically what have RPG companies done very right and very wrong to help get you interested in what they were doing.
To summarize my first post in this thread:
1. Don't try too hard to write "the perfect iconic female." Write human beings.
2. Use a diversity in artwork.
And furthermore to your quote of LMPJr's:
What RPG companies have done right is design compelling worlds where I can design a hero, male or female, where I feel empowered as that hero. Where the writing is intelligent and solid, and the gameplay is fun.
When RPG companies have a game I'm not interested in, it's usually because the game itself is bad, the writing is poor, or something in it makes me feel like I am not welcome to play (exploitive artwork being often an easy to find offender, which is why it was brought up. And there is a difference between "scantily clad"--which as I keep saying, I'm okay with in doses--and "exploitive." If you don't understand what that difference is, a discussion on a gamer message board is unlikely to help you).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A good rule of thumb: If your cover might potentially embarass a member of the male persuasion who is seen buying or holding the product by a member of the female persuasion - by virtue of the depiction of the female character on the cover - it's not a good cover.
I would be embarassed about buying this, for example. By contrast, I would not be embarassed about buying this or this.
As for Brian E. Harris' points, "reverse pandering" does indeed exist, and it can be quite offensive. Creative enterprises pat themselves on the back all the time. "Look, I included gay characters in my work!"
Maybe they'd like a cookie?
It's pretty evident (to me) that what's going on here is not the same thing, though. LPJ Design is speaking as a 3PP producer that is concerned about alnienating few female fans (see the first link, above), and has created a thread petitioning female gamers to describe means and methods that other companies have used which either appealed to them, or made them feel alienated. Also (as others have pointed out), the original post had little to do with the current subject matter.
Throwing around the "reverse pandering" accusation lightly is a good way to discourage creative enterprises from this kind of crowdsourcing. Don't do it.
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
This used to be a good and constructive thread, with minimal finger pointing and a lot of interesting suggestions.
I suggest that those who want to have a gender/political discussion start a new thread.
Perhaps a troll can bring the thread back on track with a new question.
Disney's Robin Hood was mentioned, correctly or not, as a "male role model".
What about including female role models as NPCs in RPG products?
1. Which nice examples of this have we seen?
2. How can this be done well, without seeming like "trying too hard" or "token effort to reach female gamers"?
|
I think you mean this link.I'm not saying it's a good or bad picture, it just got me to think of this and that it might a good read for illustrators and publishers:
http://www.comicsbulletin.com/columns/2486/wheres-thebeef--the-myth-of-male -objectification-in-superhero-comics/
That video was.... interesting...
Dollhouse aside (ugh), Joss Weaton's female characters are a good starting point if you're looking for examples of female role models (or: role models who happen to be female) that are not token nods or "trying too hard" characters that come across as one-dimensional.
Firefly's Zoe, for example. Or Kaylee. Or any female character from Firefly, pretty much.
God, I miss Firefly...
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
Joss Whedon makes awesome characters.
I second that.
Firefly and Avengers
I think you mean this link.
I'm not sure I understand the point of that article. Is it arguing that it's okay to create images which make people feel inadequate so long as no one gets turned on by those images? Because I don't agree with that at all.
Joss Whedon makes awesome characters.
I second that.
I think we can all agree that Joss understands women better the some women do. I count him as a freak of nature in the creative entertainment world.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Dollhouse aside (ugh), Joss Weaton's female characters are a good starting point if you're looking for examples of female role models (or: role models who happen to be female) that are not token nods or "trying too hard" characters that come across as one-dimensional.
Firefly's Zoe, for example. Or Kaylee. Or any female character from Firefly, pretty much.
God, I miss Firefly...
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
In which DQ tangents slightly about Dollhouse, but also talks about gender roles and role models.
It's interesting you "ugh" at Dollhouse, because a lot of why people find it squicky is because basically it's a show about people who turn real men and women into exactly the kind of fantasies that we think might be okay in artwork or stories or in our heads...
I mean, why isn't Echo a good female role model? As the character develops, she proves herself to be adaptable, intelligent, creative, driven, and she wants to help people. But, hm, she's also essentially a prostitute shaking off brainwashing. And that prostitute bit, even if she was basically forced to be a prostitute against her will, really bothers people, even though the show itself is clear it does not condone the situation the main character is in. Food for thought.
Now, the situation is squicky and it's supposed to be, and if you're not squicked out by it, I'd worry. But does it mean women can't be in squicky situations and be role models? Hm.
(*I don't like the character of Echo, mind. She doesn't appeal to me personally -- my favorite gals in that show were Adelle, Ivy, and November. And a little bit Bennett, even though Summer Glau usually annoys me. But you could argue a lot of the traits Echo puts forward are actually positive role model character traits)
(*Also, Dollhouse had its problems in other respect. But actually in terms of writing role models or heroes to look up to, I don't think it was any better or worse than Whedon's other series. Maybe I don't think much of his ability to write role models then, but still, I found the characterization to be typically Whedonish, personally. If there was any difference, you had to stick with the series longer to see that characterization--because of the nature of the series it was hard to necessarily grok the personalities of the characters at first because they were either dolls or evasive).
As for fantasy role models, I don't read a lot of Pathfinder setting stuff, but Ameiko from Sandpoint seems cool.
For other settings, as OTT as she is, Xena was appealing for a reason and it wasn't just that she kicked ass. And Gabrielle.
Look to good books too... CJ Cherryh's Morgaine... and while I find Mercedes Lackey's characters hit or miss, Kerowyn I think is a good role model.
But this also goes back to too... write good characters, write human characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
** spoiler omitted **
Mrs. Gersen has a total woman-crush on Adelle.
I think you mean this link.I'm not sure I understand the point of that article. Is it arguing that it's okay to create images which make people feel inadequate so long as no one gets turned on by those images? Because I don't agree with that at all.
No, it's exploring the difference in portrayal of male and female characters and how the objectification of male and female superheroes work in different ways and are aimed at different groups; how big beefy dudes in loincloth does not provoke the same response among women as barbies in loincloth provoke in men. Basically.
There's a lot more interesting to read on the subject, but that was the first one to come to mind.
If you care, that is. It's slightly off-topic right now though.
Firefly's Zoe, for example. Or Kaylee. Or any female character from Firefly, pretty much.
Yep, pretty much. Sing with me! "Mamas, don't let your babies grow up to be insane mentally-programmed super-assassins..."
EDIT: That might have sounded confrontational, but was not intended to be. "Pretty much" as in "We surely are thinking of the same exception".
Heh.
Meanwhile, on topic, I think Xena (while a terrible show - sorry!) is a very, very good role model. I always thought she was a one-dimensional character until my girlfriend started watching the show. It's so campy - I can't stand it - but Xena is actually a good example of a non-token female lead and err... role... model.
Except... don't let your kids actually do any of the things that Xena does.
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
Except... don't let your kids actually do any of the things that Xena does.
... unless your kid is Zoe Bell, that is. Now THERE'S a woman and a half!
Heh.
It is a show that you really need to watch a few episodes to get into. If you ever have the time, the patience, the stomach for it... watch the first six episodes has changed. I know that's a lot, but if the opportunity arises, I think you'll see what you missed. Then let me know if your view of the show has changed. (Unfortunately, I'd also guarantee the LAST six episodes of the second season ruin a good thing going, but the first season ends up really good and the beginning of the second season is fascinating.)
Meanwhile, on topic, I think Xena (while a terrible show - sorry!) is a very, very good role model. I always thought she was a one-dimensional character until my girlfriend started watching the show. It's so campy - I can't stand it - but Xena is actually a good example of a non-token female lead and err... role... model.Except... don't let your kids actually do any of the things that Xena does.
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
Yes. She's actually got a very compelling backstory when you start paying attention (although they start to overload it a bit as the show progresses). The "bad person trying to redeem herself" makes for a great story---and Xena's one of the best redemption tales I've seen.
Yes. She's actually got a very compelling backstory when you start paying attention (although they start to overload it a bit as the show progresses). The "bad person trying to redeem herself" makes for a great story---and Xena's one of the best redemption tales I've seen.
Redemption is a great story element that everyone can relate to. Plus nothing is more interesting then some one who fights against their basic nature to do what is right, what ever "right" might be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think most men in our culture have the slightest experience with what objectification feels like.
I think every man in our society who has ever had a prospective partner judge him by the size of his bank account knows exactly what objectification feels like. He doesn't know what it feels like to be marginalized as a sex object, but knows perfectly well what it feels like to be seen as a nameless, faceless means to an end, which is just as demeaning.
I'm not looking to argue with you, Meep, I mean DA, but I'd say that being judged on your assets rather than your "assets" is a difference that you're not aware you're glossing over. I'm taking issue with the "just as", not the" demeaning", if you see what I mean.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Female role-models? Katara from Avatar: The Last Airbender. Because she's both feminine and a great role-model for anyone, male or female.
She's both warrior and healer, is fierce about all the right things and gentle about the others, knows the difference between empathy and pity/excuses, is unmovable in her defense of her friends and what's right, is willing to reassess people and positions and learn from her mistakes, isn't afraid to show emotion and knows she isn't weakened by that, respects authority and experience but is willing to challenge it when she believes it's wrong, isn't afraid to take the lead but is willing to play support roles for the greater good, and is generally witty, wonderful and wise, not to mention lambently intelligent and compassionate.
The best part is that she's a kid, so she screws up sometimes and isn't always true to herself, and as a result, you get to watch her develop into being consistently all the things I listed above, even as her powers and general badassery also develop.
You can't wield magic like she does, but you absolutely can be the sort of person she is: her awesomeness is defined not by her powers, but by how she handles herself both in her daily interactions and in how she responds when things fall apart.
Oooh, good one.
Seconding Katara, and also Korra (for most of the same reasons).
Daron Woodson
Abandoned Arts
So... does anything about Zoe, Kaylee, Ameiko, Xena, Gabrielle, Morgaine, Kerowyn, Katara, and Korra make them good female role models?
Or are they simply good role models for either gender, and are actually examples of "write genderless NPC details and then add gender at the end"?
I'll just contribute that I see (others may disagree) gender differences in many struggles appropriate to RPG NPCs. Yes, these are stereotypes, and exceptions of course exist. But stereotypes and archetypes are part of how readers interpret NPCs that otherwise have scanty text and backstories.
Four easy examples: handling anger, rejecting social expectations, earning respect in a town, and allowing deeds to stand without verbal justification are all (in my experience) quite different for men and women. For those few NPCs that have real depth, I would expect their gender to be important if these issues arise rather than decided at the end of NPC creation.
So... does anything about Zoe, Kaylee, Ameiko, Xena, Gabrielle, Morgaine, Kerowyn, Katara, and Korra make them good female role models?
Or are they simply good role models for either gender, and are actually examples of "write genderless NPC details and then add gender at the end"?
I'll just contribute that I see (others may disagree) gender differences in many struggles appropriate to RPG NPCs. Yes, these are stereotypes, and exceptions of course exist. But stereotypes and archetypes are part of how readers interpret NPCs that otherwise have scanty text and backstories.
Four easy examples: handling anger, rejecting social expectations, earning respect in a town, and allowing deeds to stand without verbal justification are all (in my experience) quite different for men and women. For those few NPCs that have real depth, I would expect their gender to be important if these issues arise rather than decided at the end of NPC creation.
Why on earth would handling anger or "allowing deeds to stand without verbal justification" be different based on whether you're male or female?
And as I just said, Katara is a good role model regardless of gender. Unless you're going to argue that empathy, loyalty, compassion, standing up for what's right, learning from mistakes, etc. are not valuable traits for both genders.
Moreover, I think she's a great role-model because she's not "genderless." She is feminine. But a lot of traits traditionally classed as "feminine," (e.g. empathy) are valuable and desirable for both men and women. Katara also recasts some traditionally masculine traits in less-masculine forms (she's not Buffy), which is valuable since the traditional masculine warrior model is only achievable (and arguably, healthy) for a narrow subset of men anyway. Katara models both traditionally feminine traits in manners achievable for anyone regardless of gender, and alternative forms of traditionally masculine qualities.
|
So... does anything about Zoe, Kaylee, Ameiko, Xena, Gabrielle, Morgaine, Kerowyn, Katara, and Korra make them good female role models?
Or are they simply good role models for either gender, and are actually examples of "write genderless NPC details and then add gender at the end"?
I'll just contribute that I see (others may disagree) gender differences in many struggles appropriate to RPG NPCs. Yes, these are stereotypes, and exceptions of course exist. But stereotypes and archetypes are part of how readers interpret NPCs that otherwise have scanty text and backstories.
Four easy examples: handling anger, rejecting social expectations, earning respect in a town, and allowing deeds to stand without verbal justification are all (in my experience) quite different for men and women. For those few NPCs that have real depth, I would expect their gender to be important if these issues arise rather than decided at the end of NPC creation.
Why on earth would handling anger or "allowing deeds to stand without verbal justification" be different based on whether you're male or female?
And as I just said, Katara is a good role model regardless of gender. Unless you're going to argue that empathy, loyalty, compassion, standing up for what's right, learning from mistakes, etc. are not valuable traits for both genders.
Moreover, I think she's a great role-model because she's not "genderless." She is feminine. But a lot of traits traditionally classed as "feminine," (e.g. empathy) are valuable and desirable for both men and women. Katara also recasts some traditionally masculine traits in less-masculine forms (she's not Buffy), which is valuable since the traditional masculine warrior model is only achievable (and arguably, healthy) for a narrow subset of men anyway. Katara models both traditionally feminine traits in manners achievable for anyone regardless of gender, and alternative forms of traditionally masculine qualities.
I think part of the problem is that when we look to characters in stories and gender, there are two approaches
1st Approach: What I call the "Balancing" approach. This approach serves to balance the number of good "Male" characters with an equal amount of good "Female" characters. The logic behind this is that you cannot complain of sexism if there is equal representation. The problem here is that it reinforces gender identities which are untrue, so you don't really "Solve" the sexism argument. This does however seem to be the most widely used method however.
2nd Approach: What I call the "Neutral" approach. This approach (correctly IMHO) asserts that character qualities like Bravery, Compassion, Pettiness, Cruelty, and other positive/negative traits are ubiquitous. Therefore, characters should be constructed without taking gender into account and then after you have created your character, you can determine whether you want them to be female or male. This is my preferred approach to character design because it treats a character as a human, not a man or a woman.
I think it's important to remember that there's difference between a product detailing a setting where sexism exists, and a sexist product.
For example, in the 1st to 4th season of doctor who revival, there are sexist characters making sexist remarks about both Rose, Martha and Donna. That doesn't make the show sexist as it doesn't make them the "good guys" and defend them - rather, the female characters speaks out against them when they do and we are supposed to sympathize with the companions.
Meanwhile, the 5th and 6th season of Doctor Who is frequently sexist, in that both the Doctor and Rory acts sexist towards Amy and _get away with it_. We're supposed to sympathize with their behaviour and Amys acceptance of it. (That, together with the more loose take on what's allowed and not in time travel, is what turns me off from a season that's otherwise very creepy in a good way). This, I know, has turned many female fans I know away from the series.
A setting doesn't have to be free from sexism, but make sure that there are people opposing it, and make sure those are portrayed in a better light than the sexists.
|
Meanwhile, the 5th and 6th season of Doctor Who is frequently sexist, in that both the Doctor and Rory acts sexist towards Amy and _get away with it_. We're supposed to sympathize with their behaviour and Amys acceptance of it. (That, together with the more loose take on what's allowed and not in time travel, is what turns me off from a season that's otherwise very creepy in a good way). This, I know, has turned many female fans I know away from the series.
Some examples?
'Cos from my POV, the Moffat era has been far superior in every single way to the RTD era. And most of the good stuff from the RTD era came from Moffat anyhow.
Meanwhile, the 5th and 6th season of Doctor Who is frequently sexist, in that both the Doctor and Rory acts sexist towards Amy and _get away with it_. We're supposed to sympathize with their behaviour and Amys acceptance of it. (That, together with the more loose take on what's allowed and not in time travel, is what turns me off from a season that's otherwise very creepy in a good way). This, I know, has turned many female fans I know away from the series.Some examples?
'Cos from my POV, the Moffat era has been far superior in every single way to the RTD era. And most of the good stuff from the RTD era came from Moffat anyhow.
Spoiler warning if you haven't seen past S6E4 (I think):
Of the top of my head, the scene where Rory is invited to join in flying the TARDIS. Amy reacts that she's never allowed to do that despite asking, and some sexist comments are exchanged; while I don't remember the details, I remember Rory saying she only passed driving lessons because she wore a skirt - not only replicating the old sexist trope of "women can't drive" but also the just as tired trope of "women gain success by flirting".
Now, had this been said to Donna or Martha, they would have reacted to the sexism and confronted it - instead, Amy (who's consistently portrayed as mentally slow and incapable too - another irritating trope, though not as much as Rory is) starts to defend herself with that it was "just a plain old skirt" - as if the Rory's comment was valid at all. I remember it because when I watched it it was with a friend who's biologically female and we both where kind of awed just at how casually such things go. It's not the only time, but it's one that stood out because it wasn't just a random comment, it was a whole dialogue.
In addition, a lot more focus has been put on the looks of the characters - Rory constantly comments her looks and the Doctor refers to her as "legs" like he was House. It's a lot of small random comments that just is there as a wet carpet of sexism.
On the other hand, I must say that River Song is an excellent character though. You see that there is a large difference in the Doctor/Song relationship and the Amy/Rory relationship when it comes to those kind of things - the Doctor and Song are much more "level".
Also, the gender (and race!) distribution when it comes to other people have really changed too. While the show has always been male-centric, 1st to 4th season of the revival where less so than others have been. Now it's back to "the doctor saves the world over and over again while the women are mostly decoration". And while Rose and Martha where both really "followers" to the doctor (with Donna being more of an equal companion), Amy are like... Obsessed, and mostly helpless when the doctor isn't there. Nearly always when Amy does something awesome, she's just following the doctors orders.
Now, of course there's exceptions and I'm not saying everything is bad, it's more of a general change of pace.
And the "more loose take on what's allowed or not", apart from Moffat most episodes have been pretty much "you can't alter your own timeline, and causing paradoxes will be PRETTY bad...". Just look at what happens when Rose touches herself as a baby. Whenever Moffat's involved, that's taken a lot more loosely, and they can interact with their previous selves a lot without the universe ending.
Not being able to change your own timeline? Goodbye at weeping angels.
Parallel dimensions being incredibly hard to access? Goodbye at ghost ship.
There's been exceptions before but now they're more rule than exception.
To Moffat's defense, he does other things exceptionally well - both plot and excecution of the plot is usually excellent in his episodes, and no other can make it so frakkin' creepy to watch Doctor Who.
EDIT: One easy way to think about it:
Could I see a show where Rose is the lead character? Sure! I could see her being all kick-ass with Mickey as sidekick, fightin' the good fight against the cybermen in Pete's world.
Could I see a show where Martha is the lead character? Of course! As the lead person of a torchwood-like crime show centering around UNIT and it's work.
Could I see a show where Donna is the lead character (had she not been memory wiped)? Um, yeah. It's DONNA FRAKKIN' NOBLE! :)
Could I see a show where Amy is the lead character? I... Don't know. What would that be about? What would she say?
|
|
On the other hand, I must say that River Song is an excellent character though. You see that there is a large difference in the Doctor/Song relationship and the Amy/Rory relationship when it comes to those kind of things - the Doctor and Song are much more "level".
It's funny you feel that way, since I was expecting River to be the source of most of your complaints, since, like Jack before here, she's little more than a steady barrage of sex puns occasionally interrupted by some implausible action sequences.
Amy is sexy...it's not sexiest to have a character be sexy. And I don't see her portrayed as being mentally slow or incapable either. Certainly not in "The Girl Who Waited". Can you imagine any of the other companions staying alive for 36 years in that environment? Lela or Ace...sure. Rose, Martha, or Donna? Nope, not buying it.
You can really imagine Martha as the head of her own show? Nothing against the actress, but Martha's characterization came down to little more than "in love with the Doctor" and, in the Doctor's eyes at least, "inferior Rose substitute".
Speaking of Rose, she's nothing more than a rather over-the-top Mary Sue. Even after she left, she wouldn't go away. RTD's obsession with her pretty much ruined any chance Martha had at being a good companion, and she even got given her own mortal Doctor to play with when we finally left her for good (at least, hopefully).
Moffat even has managed to do homosexuals better than RTD, ironically. RTD's homosexual characters would make a big-to-do out of their homosexuality, despite the fact that it didn't actually affect anything else going on in the episode. Whereas Moffat introduced us to a couple of guys who happened to be gay, but didn't try to turn their orientation announcement into a big Broadway musical.
Besides, anyone who watched "The Doctor's Wife" knows that Rory is "the pretty one".
Since this thread has been derailed by many different off topics subjects let me RESTATE the original question and purpose of this thread:
So first, I would like to hear a few comments from the female fan base and learn specifically what have RPG companies done very right and very wrong to help get you interested in what they were doing.
Since this thread has been derailed by many different off topics subjects let me RESTATE the original question and purpose of this thread:
So first, I would like to hear a few comments from the female fan base and learn specifically what have RPG companies done very right and very wrong to help get you interested in what they were doing.
Based on what has been posted in this thread, what have you learned so far? I'd like to see the discussion continue with the original premise, but I fear people will just state what has been stated before. Give us a short summary of what you, as the game designer, have learned from the women of the gaming world.
Edit: this also lets us know that you've actually been listening and accepting what women have to say. The final test will be your product, but this is a good first test.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Speaking of homosexuality, I think the blind gender assignment idea from earlier in the thread is terrible. With blind gender assignment half of all relationships will wind up homosexual. This is far above even the most liberal estimates.
"Oh no, a fantasy society that isn't like the real world! Whatever shall we do?"
Societies that tolerate 50% homosexuality are simply not going to pass the Darwin test.
Having a relationship with someone of the same gender does not mean you're homosexual/not able to reproduce within your relationship. You could be bisexual, or for that matter one part may be transsexual.
To maintain a stable population every heterosexual couple would need an average of 4 children who reached adulthood and reproduced.
Being in a same-sex relationship does not mean you cannot reproduce.
Also, it's taking an awful lot of realism into something that otherwise don't care about realism. Look at, for example, the economy.
Is it wise to discuss homosexuality here?
This is a bigger hot button issue than politics itself.
Without really going into the sexuality-in-a-magical-fantasy-world issue:
When choosing random genders, link characters that are in a romantic relationship. Rather than choosing each gender independently, first pick one character's gender, and then make the other character's gender compatible; say, the opposite gender in 90% of cases, and the same gender in 10% of cases. (Or pick a different statistic; that's just one I've frequently heard.)
Certainly, an easily fixed problem like that is no reason to call the blind gender assignment suggestion "terrible."
A lord must reproduce to maintain the system.
Only if you slavishly subscribe to historical models of primogeniture and the like. In one of the kingdoms in my homebrew setting, each noble appoints a successor from among the populace of his or her estate, based on who he or she thinks will rule well. He or she can just as easily pick the stableboy or the milkmaid, rather than a first-born child. Gay lord or lady? No problems with succession.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A lord must reproduce to maintain the system.Only if you slavishly subscribe to historical models of primogeniture and the like. In one of the kingdoms in my homebrew setting, each noble appoints a successor from among the populace of his or her estate, based on who he or she thinks will rule well. He or she can just as easily pick the stableboy or the milkmaid, rather than a first-born child. Gay lord or lady? No problems with succession.
And even if you do apply them, it still doesn't matter - in a patrilineal society, so long as descent from the lord could be proved, he could be gay and see reproducing as just another duty (something to be done, but not enjoyed, before he can go back home to his husband/boyfriend). In a matrilineal one, it's even easier, since descent doesn't have to be proved - the lady could just pick whoever she thinks will give her child the best genes, put up with the act itself, and then go home to her wife/girlfriend at the end of the day.
Just have variety in art, concepts, characters, personalities etc for both genders giving equal attention to every area.What visual fantasy troupe do you feel is over used in character design and imagery?
The chainmail bikini is by far the most over used fantasy troupe.