| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I had hoped my frequent "You do not necessarily need to agree with this definition of the use of the term, but this is how it is often used" would stem off the argument about semantics. ~sigh~
Language is often a poor tool for communication.
|
So is this article evidence of equality of opportunity? Or equality of outcome? Or both? or neither?
I've been told to my face that while I was well qualified for a job and they wanted to hire me, they needed an Asian person to fill that slot. But I guess that's ok.
As to "if X outcome happens, is that opportunity or outcome", the question answers itself... it's outcome. Opportunity doesn't care about outcomes, those are up to individuals, it looks at opportunity. If "no females/males/blacks/whites/Irish/whatever need apply", because they won't even be considered if they do, that's unequal opportunity.
The thing that stood out the most to me there was the insistence that age, gender, and other factors of the professors made absolutely no difference at all in the evaluation. None. So their answer to that was pervasive cultural bias that affects everyone equally. That may be true, but I would posit another possible reason. They know that the efforts of Affirmative Action to recruit and pass women through science fields in universities. They may know that if a male and female student are both said to have scored an 85, that she may have gotten a number of bonus points just for checking the "female" box on her application, and they are taking that into account in their evaluations. That hurts all the women that would have made it on their own by denigrating their skill, intellect, and effort. I think questioning those profs as to their reasoning would be very useful, rather than just looking at the results.
|
|
I had hoped my frequent "You do not necessarily need to agree with this definition of the use of the term, but this is how it is often used" would stem off the argument about semantics. ~sigh~
Sorry Alice, I do appreciate the effort, and I understand people use it differently, but "equal opportunity" is the antithesis of "social justice" IMO and I just had to give my own views. Please don't take it as denigrating your views or trying to be argumentative or anything, I'm just offering my thoughts on it.
|
You're also welcome to yours, but I don't believe this is the correct place to be discussing them.
Much like the problem we came across in the Sexism in Gaming thread, we're diverting from the main topic (i.e., sexualised depictions of women in video games) to bickering about the semantics (i.e., what is privilege? should we use this terminology in this way?)
They know that the efforts of Affirmative Action to recruit and pass women through science fields in universities.
*fails Will save*
Okay, I don't know how things work in the US, but there's nothing that immediately gives a woman a boost in the sciences here. There are a lot of additional recruitment paths (e.g., groups specially created to try and encourage women to get into engineering and the sciences) and scholarships that are targeted at women, but the latter are STILL only given to high achievers that would be in the running for other high achieving scholarships in the first place. Once you're in university, it's your choice whether to put the work in to get a good grade or to fail.
I do agree though... the idea that men might think that I am in my position because I am female and not because I am competent is incredibly insulting and yet highly likely to be going through various people's minds. But, at least in my experience of Australian universities, there's no actual fact behind "women getting boosted grades" or some such. It's an unfortunate and totally false accusation that actively works against getting women into these jobs.
---
Speaking of the environment that works against them, back on the topic of video games, people have been scoffing at thinking that so many women play, etc., etc., and it's good business sense for producers to focus on the male market.
I'll give you that a large proportion of female gamers are likely playing Facebook games and the like. However, if they are interested in playing those kinds of games, surely there's a potential to be interested in playing other games, too! Think of Facebook games as the gateway drug. :)
But there are a lot of things that would probably deter a woman from shifting from one area of gaming to another. The fact that they're rarely marketed to women. The often times terrible communities around games. The sexualisation/trivialisation of women in them. And so on.
So my thought is that, while perhaps currently the numbers aren't as even as they are in other sectors, that may in fact be because of the current state of game dev and marketing... and companies are missing out on a big chance to attract more people to their games!
The thing that stood out the most to me there was the insistence that age, gender, and other factors of the professors made absolutely no difference at all in the evaluation. None. So their answer to that was pervasive cultural bias that affects everyone equally. That may be true, but I would posit another possible reason. They know that the efforts of Affirmative Action to recruit and pass women through science fields in universities. They may know that if a male and female student are both said to have scored an 85, that she may have gotten a number of bonus points just for checking the "female" box on her application, and they are taking that into account in their evaluations. That hurts all the women that would have made it on their own by denigrating their skill, intellect, and effort. I think questioning those profs as to their reasoning would be very useful, rather than just looking at the results.
As someone who has spent much of the last decade in academia, and who is currently wrapping up his PhD, I don't get any sense you even the vaguest idea of how academia works (I also don't get a sense you even read the article, but whatever). GRE scores have little to do with actually getting into a program (and nothing to do with landing a job), its research experience and letters of recommendation from profs that land you into a lab.
As for getting a postdoc or position, usually the positions are very narrowly defined, and success of being hired is based on publication record. No one gives a crap about your test scores once you have a PhD, although they may care about your school or your lab.
That said there are plenty of other sources of bias. A lot of profs seem to show greater respect towards very aggressive personalities, which do seem to skew towards male. And sexual harassment, both from other grad students and from profs, is an issue. And then there is lack of flexibility in movement. Female grad students are often guilt-tripped from research/schooling opportunities if there male significant others don't want to leave, but there seems to be no problem the other way around.
And a lot of departments are operated on the old boys club politics. I have a female friend who was told by a prof that she should work on getting her MRS degree, not her PhD. In a completely different lab, while doing fieldwork, she was told to prepare dinner while the men try to get a vehicle unstuck (which is doubly hilarious, since she can't cook and was more athletic/strong than the 300 pound grad student that was enlisted in helping). My former MS advisor (who was female), was forbidden to do field work solely because she was a woman.
That doesn't even get into the problems of tenure. Tenure is based on the amount of outside funding and publications. Many men in academia for that reason put off starting a family until they have tenure (which may be as late as in their forties). Women generally can't do that if they want children, so are often forced to choose between Career or family, or try to juggle both and lose there job.
|
|
The study claims it wasn't just men who thought that, it was female professors as well. And age and other factors made no difference as well. I would expect any sort of gender discrimination to reflect differences for both age and gender, even if it were unconscious. So while it could be that women profs don't like female science students any better than their male counterparts, I think something else may be going on there. I'd definitely want to talk to the respondents and get their reasoning for their decisions.
I do notice that many facebook gamers are women... my female friends are typically the ones that send me things like "Join me in playing Pet Rescue!" invitations. There is a more insular community there, there you can play by yourself and still match scores with select friends, but not play against strangers like in online gaming. Perhaps games that did more of that would appeal to female gamers?
|
|
Yes we began talking about sexualised imagery and we have ended talking about inequalities - why?
Because men, specifically rich white men, still set the agenda that suits them and capitalism trains us to swallow it.
I said earlier we often don't see the manipulation - a lot of the comments on this thread simply prove this.
Topics morph and change dynamically, I don't think a conspiracy of "rich white men" derail discussions. And I know I'm not rich!
Yes we began talking about sexualised imagery and we have ended talking about inequalities - why?
Because men, specifically rich white men, still set the agenda that suits them and capitalism trains us to swallow it.
I said earlier we often don't see the manipulation - a lot of the comments on this thread simply prove this.
This thread is such a wonderful example of Paul Simon's brilliant songwriting in "The Boxer":
"A [person] hears what [they] want to hear and disregards the rest... la la la la la la laaahhh"
On the whole, conspiracies are best avoided.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Topics morph and change dynamically, I don't think a conspiracy of "rich white men" derail discussions. And I know I'm not rich!
No but you pretty much jumped on derailing this thread from its inception, make sure to comment on as many replies as possible, and bring as many outside references you can. You don't need a conspiracy you have been derailing this all by your lonesome. No matter how many times your asked to cease, no matter how many pleas people make (male and female) to go back on topic.
Perhaps no one has simply been polite enough for your tastes? Samurai can you please stop threadjacking this topic and topics like it and start your own thread? Pretty please with cherries on top. I promise I'll even participate in your men's issues thread.
You have valid points, this is merely not the place for them as others have mentioned, I'd rather not see another thread shut down.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that's often what gets missed in these conversations. Most of this is unconscious. There are very few people that sit around thinking "Women can't be as smart as men." or "I'm going to make a sexist assumption today." I would almost venture to say there are no people that sit around and think like that, but I guess there could always be outliers.
it's cultural. Most of these things are. That's why I like to talk about them - it's amazing when I sit and realize what my assumptions are. People react as if "I think that's [X]-ist" means "You're holding me down on purpose because you hate people like me!" when it can also mean "You may want to take a step back and examine what you might be doing there" (and often the "accuser" goes out of their way to make clear that they mean).
These conversations usually degenerate pretty quickly into accusation and defensiveness rather than explorations of the topic, though. ::shrug::
|
I had hoped my frequent "You do not necessarily need to agree with this definition of the use of the term, but this is how it is often used" would stem off the argument about semantics. ~sigh~
The thing is, that your definition is wrong, and it is not what most people use the word to mean. The way you are suggesting is almost a form of slang, which might be appropriate to a small group, but to the population sexism means descrimination against a group based on sex, not females because of their sex. maybe you just don't see it, but the issue you are facing is that you keep going off topic, trying to set a standard that isn't actually the standard, (so to speak), and then getting offended when others move the topic back on topic, which is probably not the tpic you intended. I'm really not trying to be a jerk here, I'm not, but it really seems your trying to outshout everyone ese (internet style) by trying to presume that your definitons are the only right ones, particularly when others have experience that contradicts completely that.
Much like the problem we came across in the Sexism in Gaming thread, we're diverting from the main topic (i.e., sexualised depictions of women in video games) to bickering about the semantics (i.e., what is privilege? should we use this terminology in this way?)
To be fair, the topic was not about "getting women into gaming" or "sexism against women in gaming" as you seem to have wanted it to be exclusively, but specifically about getting everyone into gaming and sexism against everyone. Again, there where false definitions thrown in there that where obviously wrong, leads to a lot of confusion, (and many valid points getting censored, intintionally or not), and a result or outcome simply can not be argued or debated when the premise doesn't hold.
“Well, to be concise, sir, we headed out of port on a journey to examine the idea of why we enjoy the image of sexualized, scantily clad women in our gaming entertainment, and as one would natural expect, the ship has gone off course into the waters of, life isn’t fair, I’m telling you you don’t see things clearly, and you don’t understand how it really is, which, inevitably will lead to our ship being dashed upon the reef of locked threads and warnings to revisit the message board rules.”Funny, yet true. ;D
This leads back to my original point.
I desire "sexy, scanilty clad" female characters in my gaming entertainment.
Since I am a consumer and (probably) a representative of the largest percentage of the customer base.
I feel that I do have some rights as a customer. But what I don't want to do is throw the other consumer groups "under the bus" so to speak.
Lets define sexist in a useful way.
Sexist is useful as a term when applied to things that are meant to demean and discriminate against women.
Is it your goal to attach yourself to that definition?
No. I would not choose to attach myself to that definition.
What I said is that "I desire 'sexy, scantily clad' female characters in my gaming entertainment".
However, I do realize that in the eyes of at least some people this would still be a form of gender discrimination (though, I hope a minor one). If so, I would still be okay with that.
Is that more clear?
Most of us who consider themselves reformers aren't looking to make your cheesecake extinct. Nor are we looking to shame you for your preferences.
We'd just like some more options out there for those of us with different tastes. With characters that have a bit more depth. One of the things I did like about Xena, was quite frankly, she wasn't that pretty, and she had character development along with a sidekick who was a worthy measure to any of her male counterparts. Progress has been made, but we're convinced that there is more room for improvement. Improvement that's only going to be acheived under the pressure of more advocacy.
This is taking alot on faith. There will be many who will prove you quite wrong, and with no moderation from reformers to mollify those who do want to make cheesecake extinct, this fight is going to rage on.
Most of us who consider themselves reformers aren't looking to make your cheesecake extinct. Nor are we looking to shame you for your preferences.
Okay.
But Irontruth's phrasing made me feel defensive. :(
Most of us who consider themselves reformers aren't looking to make your cheesecake extinct. Nor are we looking to shame you for your preferences.This is taking alot on faith. There will be many who will prove you quite wrong, and with no moderation from reformers to mollify those who do want to make cheesecake extinct, this fight is going to rage on.
However, no one benefits from making a discussion about "wants" and "preferences" into a fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lets define sexist in a useful way.Sexist is useful as a term when applied to things that are meant to demean and discriminate against women.
Is it your goal to attach yourself to that definition?
No. I would not choose to attach myself to that definition.
What I said is that "I desire 'sexy, scantily clad' female characters in my gaming entertainment".
However, I do realize that in the eyes of at least some people this would still be a form of gender discrimination (though, I hope a minor one). If so, I would still be okay with that.
Is that more clear?
We're getting there. Now is what I have been saying clear?
I'm not looking to demonize you for what you find sexually attractive.
The problem is when females are ONLY portrayed in such a fashion. I'm guessing your answer will be "no", but I'll let you answer this: do you think women should ONLY be portrayed as the cultural "norm" for attractive, with little to no clothing and often in submissive and sexualized poses?
Wants and desires are relevant, but I think we should be cognizant of how actions based on those can impact others.
No one is here to take away cheesecakeness from those whom like it. However cheesecake is one of the reasons, and I strongly believe this, that chain mail bikinis help give rise to the horny basement crowd perception. This is not save vs. sexism, but sexism is still here. And to clarify, wiles for the ladies is the slinky dress vs no clothing. Seductive vs wanton, alluring vs obvious. At least for me that is move closer to reality than dryads and warrior princesses with large busts.
|
|
The study claims it wasn't just men who thought that, it was female professors as well. And age and other factors made no difference as well. I would expect any sort of gender discrimination to reflect differences for both age and gender, even if it were unconscious. So while it could be that women profs don't like female science students any better than their male counterparts, I think something else may be going on there. I'd definitely want to talk to the respondents and get their reasoning for their decisions.
That's usually true with statistics, where only some of the evidence or findings are presented to divert to what someone is wanting it to show, rather than what the full evidence actually would show.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
to quote homer simpson “Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything. 14% of people know that.”
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, that your definition is wrong, and it is not what most people use the word to mean.
It's kind of like arguing that evolution isn't real because it's only a "theory". When you discuss science you understand that "theory" in scientific jargon means something very different to "theory" as used in common parlance--i.e., a scientific theory is pretty much as close as we can get to a fact, whereas in common parlance the word is used more akin to "guess".
When you discuss science, whether or not you agree with the theory of evolution, you have to understand that many scientists will use the word "theory" to mean "we're pretty damn sure this is how it works and we have a lot of evidence to back that up", not to mean "we're guessing this is how it works". Many anti-evolution parties try to discredit evolution by saying, "it's just a theory!", when saying such is intellectually dishonest (or at least incredibly ignorant).
As I said numerous times, you are welcome to DISAGREE with the meaning as it is used, but disputing its use AT ALL is kind of silly.
In the end, I was simply trying to explain why Irontruth said a certain thing, which appeared to align with the term "sexism" as used in academia. That is ALL I was trying to explain to someone who was apparently curious.
I don't know how much more blatantly I can say "You are welcome to disagree with this definition but this is how it is used in a certain context and it's important to understand that". I never even once said that I agree with it.
*headdesk* And now there's a whole lot of words that are pretty god damn irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm going to peace out of this thread until things shift back to the actual discussion.
The study claims it wasn't just men who thought that, it was female professors as well. And age and other factors made no difference as well. I would expect any sort of gender discrimination to reflect differences for both age and gender, even if it were unconscious. So while it could be that women profs don't like female science students any better than their male counterparts, I think something else may be going on there. I'd definitely want to talk to the respondents and get their reasoning for their decisions.That's usually true with statistics, where only some of the evidence or findings are presented to divert to what someone is wanting it to show, rather than what the full evidence actually would show.
Confirmation bias is a real problem in all fields of research. We usually stop looking once we find the answers we like.
|
|
The thing is, that your definition is wrong, and it is not what most people use the word to mean.** spoiler omitted **
*headdesk* And now there's a whole lot of words that are pretty g!~ d#*n irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm going to peace out of this thread until things shift back to...
No, your missing the point, and it is very on topic. Sexism means "A", but your'e saying it actually just means "B". It would be one things for you to say that "when I'm saying sexism, I am only meaning against women", (and please think of the ridiculousness of that statement on it's own merit), whereas when everyone else talks about sexism by the meaning of the word, not only are they wrong, but also have no right to correct you or clarify. It isn't that there is a second common meaning, socialogically, scientifically, or the like, it's that your'e using a word to mean something it doesn't, or the discussion is somehow then off-topic and not worth discussing.
It's like me saying "car" and meaning it as any motorized vehicle, but when someone mentions motorcycle, me saying that because that's how my friends and I mean it, everyone else is bound to use "car" to mean truck, car, sedan, jeep, etc. . .
|
|
The study claims it wasn't just men who thought that, it was female professors as well. And age and other factors made no difference as well. I would expect any sort of gender discrimination to reflect differences for both age and gender, even if it were unconscious. So while it could be that women profs don't like female science students any better than their male counterparts, I think something else may be going on there. I'd definitely want to talk to the respondents and get their reasoning for their decisions.Much of the point of studies like this is avoid the "reasoning behind the decisions". We're trying to look at subconscious biases here.
Few of them are going to say "because I think women aren't as good as men at science".Everyone, if asked to explain, will have good, apparently logical reasons for rating the application the way he or she did. Those reasons will be based on the facts and data on the application. And none of it will explain why there's a systematic bias against women.
These kind of studies have been done over and over again. What people say their reasons are don't tell the whole story.
What if, just what if, those good and logical reasons are their real reasons, and not just a cover for unconscious sexism? Or is any reason, no matter how good and logical and common sense, "sexist" if the end result is unequal?
Responding to Jess Door about assumptions we all make, that does tie back into the main topic because many people, both male and female, have an assumption that RPGs and gaming is for nerdy guys. For women, it means they might be reluctant to join in, both because of the assumption of male dominance and the negative image it has socially. For males, it may create a "What is she doing here, this is a guy's game" hesitance to welcome female players to a game. Can assumptions be changed without changing the cultural view, or does the cultural view change after the assumptions do? Kind of a "chicken and egg" question there, I don't have a definite answer.
For GM_Solspiral, I'll try to think up a good opening post, but in the meantime, I've simply been responding to and answering questions from other people, I don't feel I've derailed anything. In fact, I've even tried to bring the topic back around to the OP. I think the original topic was meant as a discussion starter, since (as far as I know) there are no people here who attacked Sarkeesian's KS (so that direct question was moot) and pretty much every guy would like at least some sexy scantily clad women in their fantasy, so that's a very non-controversial statement IMO. (How much of that, and whether it should be the main/only depiction of women may be more of a meaty topic, but again I think the vast majority of guys would say "No, of course there should be diversity and a variety of fully realized female characters of many types." So again, not much of a discussion to be had there, we all agree on it. So, things just blossomed and evolved from there into related subjects that are still under the general topic umbrella.
|
|
The thing is, that your definition is wrong, and it is not what most people use the word to mean.** spoiler omitted **
*headdesk* And now there's a whole lot of words that are pretty g!~ d#*n irrelevant to the topic at hand. I'm going to peace out of this thread until things shift back to...
No, your missing the point, and it is very on topic. Sexism means "A", but your'e saying it actually just means "B". It would be one things for you to say that "when I'm saying sexism, I am only meaning against women", (and please think of the ridiculousness of that statement on it's own merit), whereas when everyone else talks about sexism by the meaning of the word, not only are they wrong, but also have no right to correct you or clarify. It isn't that there is a second common meaning, socialogically, scientifically, or the like, it's that your'e using a word to mean something it doesn't, or the discussion is somehow then off-topic and not worth discussing.
It's like me saying "car" and meaning it as any motorized vehicle, but when someone mentions motorcycle, me saying that because that's how my friends and I mean it, everyone else is bound to use "car" to mean truck, car, sedan, jeep, etc. . .
Well, to be fair, there is a fairly large segment of the left, especially in universities and social justice circles, that do define "=isms" as only possible against minorities and "oppressed groups", and that it is literally impossible against whites, males, etc. So she's correct that there is a different definition for it within that circle, which is why I said "different" rather than "wrong", even though it's not a definition I agree with. The battle for the meaning of words and their proper usage is one that has been going on a long time.
|
|
Well, to be fair, there is a fairly large segment of the left, especially in universities and social justice circles, that do define "=isms" as only possible against minorities and "oppressed groups", and that it is literally impossible against whites, males, etc. So she's correct that there is a different definition for it within that circle, which is why I said "different" rather than "wrong", even though it's not a definition I agree with. The battle for the meaning of words and their proper usage is one that has been going on a long time.
I understand what you and she are saying. I get it, but I think that using sexism to only mean against women is both misinforming and also very much shifting the goal posts of the topic. Not only is if purpossefully causing confussion, but it's misleading and kind of offensive. It would be one thing if the case where a universal alternate meaning, but it isn't.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't find her new persona particularly strong, quite the opposite.
Vulnerable, frail, barely hanging on, and pushed to do things out of desparation/survival.I also didn't like their use of rape as a motivator.
There was a lot to it I just found to be rather backward stepping, and on so many levels any power she could now be said to possess simply has a man at it's core - even if just to survive from said man.
I liked her when she was strong, fun, independent and confident. Not so much as the 'victim that you should feel sorry for'.
Ugh.
I understand that there is a need for strong female protagonists, and that Lara Croft is an established personality, but I seriously have nothing wrong with the new version of her character. Indeed, I find her more compelling. She is human--she faces great hardships, which she isn't prepared for, and somehow comes out on top. I rather like her better this way--she's more relatable.
Moreover, "strong and capable" is the exception. Most people are not heroes (or at least, they don't start off as one; I like the "evolving" hero story). I know that a protagonist gets to be the exception, but it's refreshing to have a lead that isn't superman (occasionally).
It's not really a gender thing, either. I like strong characters (male or female)... I also like weak characters (male or female). It's all about context. Are all of the female characters depicted as weak, and in need of rescue? (Speaking of, doesn't the new Lara Croft take her fate into her own hands?) Well, that's probably a little unhealthy. Are all the female characters depicted as zena-warrior princesses? Well, that's probably not very healthy either.
Balance--that's what I'm advocating.
Edit: Oh, and regarding the "rape as motivation" bit--I'd agree, I'm not very comfortable with that in-game. Still, I understand what they were going for. It's a gritty game, and that's her reality. I don't think the game designers were advocating rape. Indeed, they were depicting it as a BAD thing (and I rather think that's a good thing). If anything, the case could be made that one of the central themes of the game is that it is a woman's journey towards independence. I'd think feminists everywhere would support that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the whole, conspiracies are best avoided.
That's what "they" want you to think.
Well, to be fair, there is a fairly large segment of the left, especially in universities and social justice circles, that do define "=isms" as only possible against minorities and "oppressed groups", and that it is literally impossible against whites, males, etc. So she's correct that there is a different definition for it within that circle, which is why I said "different" rather than "wrong", even though it's not a definition I agree with. The battle for the meaning of words and their proper usage is one that has been going on a long time.I understand what you and she are saying. I get it, but I think that using sexism to only mean against women is both misinforming and also very much shifting the goal posts of the topic. Not only is if purpossefully causing confussion, but it's misleading and kind of offensive. It would be one thing if the case where a universal alternate meaning, but it isn't.
I think my definition is just fine for the topic on hand.
The topic being whether cheesecake art (scantily clad women) is appropriate and to what extent in the art of RPG's.
The topic is about the objectification of women, which is specifically a discriminatory thing against women. If we want to have a broader topic about all forms of sexism outside of RPG art (but maybe including), we should probably start a thread in OTD. We can alter the definition for that thread if we need to. The question isn't whether college admissions are sexist, it's whether every female in Paizo books needs to look like Seoni.
|
The topic is about the objectification of women, which is specifically a discriminatory thing against women. If we want to have a broader topic about all forms of sexism outside of RPG art (but maybe including), we should probably start a thread in OTD. We can alter the definition for that thread if we need to. The question isn't whether college admissions are sexist, it's whether every female in Paizo books needs to look like Seoni.
To help get this back on topic:
NEW RELEASES
Dungeoneer's Handbook features emphasized Alahazra leg and a lot of sphinx torso.
But it also features Sajan Chest, though it's in a very small dose.(that jump he's doing on 9, he's just showing it off there ain't he? I have to admit it's not the first pose that comes to mind when I think "monk jump")
And every other female iconic isn't emphasized for fanservice, being either all-business or Merisiel-as-usual in the (awesome) panorama artwork.
Taking this book in particular, I don't think anyone looking for fanservice is honestly going to be left wanting. But it also doesn't seem to go too far in that direction either. It's not a sexless book, but it also didn't feel exploitative or onesided.
But what do others think? For those looking for fanservice geared towards straight female or gay male readers, was there enough? For those looking for NON-fanservicey representations of female characters, was there enough? Was there anything you felt was missing that you would have preferred to see?
|
|
The topic is about the objectification of women, which is specifically a discriminatory thing against women. If we want to have a broader topic about all forms of sexism outside of RPG art (but maybe including), we should probably start a thread in OTD. We can alter the definition for that thread if we need to. The question isn't whether college admissions are sexist, it's whether every female in Paizo books needs to look like Seoni.To help get this back on topic:
NEW RELEASES
Dungeoneer's Handbook features emphasized Alahazra leg and a lot of sphinx torso.
But it also features Sajan Chest, though it's in a very small dose.(that jump he's doing on 9, he's just showing it off there ain't he? I have to admit it's not the first pose that comes to mind when I think "monk jump")
And every other female iconic isn't emphasized for fanservice, being either all-business or Merisiel-as-usual in the (awesome) panorama artwork.
Taking this book in particular, I don't think anyone looking for fanservice is honestly going to be left wanting. But it also doesn't seem to go too far in that direction either. It's not a sexless book, but it also didn't feel exploitative or onesided.
But what do others think? For those looking for fanservice geared towards straight female or gay male readers, was there enough? For those looking for NON-fanservicey representations of female characters, was there enough? Was there anything you felt was missing that you would have preferred to see?
I don't have the book yet (is it out in print or just pdf? I only buy print), but from what you describe, it sounds about right. Honestly, I don't think there is any major disagreement on that. Characters should be tasteful but not sexless, good-looking "sexy" characters helps sell books but too much is a turn-off. We may have minor disagreements on where the "just enough" line is, but I think most people will agree with that basic premise, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...and that is completely irrelevant to a white male who never had any kind of break, isn't it? Just because many, even most, of the rich people are white males, that does not mean that many, or even most, of the white males are rich people. As long as you start discussing people only as parts of groups, you go wrong, simply because people are not primarily parts of groups. We, all of us, are human beings, and we don't need the government to have more reasons to treat us as only parts of groups. That is why human rights are, and need to be, expressly individual in nature.
On the whole, conspiracies are best avoided.
You are just saying that so we don't learn the truth.
¬_¬
Who makes up the vast majority of Congress? Rich people.
Who makes up the vast majority of upper level corporate echelon in America? Rich people.
Who makes up the vast majority of the judiciary and local elected officials still? Rich people.
Who makes up the vast majority of the military, police force? Poor people and the working class.
...and that is completely irrelevant to a white male who never had any kind of break, isn't it? Just because many, even most, of the rich people are white males, that does not mean that many, or even most, of the white males are rich people. As long as you start discussing people only as parts of groups, you go wrong, simply because people are not primarily parts of groups. We, all of us, are human beings, and we don't need the government to have more reasons to treat us as only parts of groups. That is why human rights are, and need to be, expressly individual in nature.But it does mean, as suggested in the study Alice brought up, even though you're not rich there are advantages to being male. Other studies have shown similar advantages to being white. If these are real, then they can't be addressed only on the individual level.
Okay... Why not? If someone is treated poorly, it is quite possible to address this on the individual level. If many someones are treated poorly, again, it is possible to deal with on an individual level. Just because many people are murdered each year, you can clearly deal with that on the individual level. Everything else is just trying to push a collectivist agenda.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Who makes up the vast majority of Congress? Rich people.
Who makes up the vast majority of upper level corporate echelon in America? Rich people.
Who makes up the vast majority of the judiciary and local elected officials still? Rich people.
Who makes up the vast majority of the military, police force? Poor people and the working class.
Who makes up the majority of people in prisons? Black Males
Who makes up the majority of people who commit violent crimes? Black males
Who makes up the majority of people least likely to go to college and most likely to end up in prison? Black Males (actually I think Latino males may be catching up here...)
and none of the above has EVER stopped the majority of white america from viewing Black Males negatively.
Yes even today. So lets be real here people lump other people into GROUPS because it's easier to do and less messy and in some cases (like the aforementioned black and latino male) it's more convenient to dehumanize the "other".
And the vast majority of the police force in this country is made up of white males. The fact that they are poor or middle class means nothing when they are harassing a group of young dark skinned males for no reason while a group of white guys from the local collage are walking across the street with OPEN BEER BOTTLES.
When white men have to deal with the stigma of being viewed as a criminal and treated as such for no reason on a semi-regular basis or being seen as unemployable because of your skin color on a semi-regular basis or basically the blame for everything that's wrong with civilization on a regular basis then talk to me about fair.
Women definitely have a viable beef and have since probably THE BEGINNING OF TIME, the LGBT community has a viable beef as well.
Yeah, sorry I can hear you over the sound of YOUR OWN DEAFENING DOMINANCE OF THE WESTERN WORLD.
Viewed as a criminal? Often go to jail/prison? You know, if that is your beef, why not focus on that? If a white male is stopped for having an open beer bottle, that is exactly as bad as a crippled, homosexual black female being stopped for the same reason. There is simply no difference. What we need to do is make sure the legal system works better. This is a far easier task than changing every part of society to compensate. Not easy, of course, but easier. As an added bonus, you don't lose equality of opportunity for making the neutrally-written laws (usually, if not they obviously need to change) better in their application. One improvement would be to shoot down all sorts of laws that get used as rubber paragraphs and often used as "well I don't like this person, what law can I claim he/she broke?"
Yeah, sorry I can hear you over the sound of YOUR OWN DEAFENING DOMINANCE OF THE WESTERN WORLD.
On a brighter note, you'll never have a problem with starvation when you can happily feed a family of five indefinitely with that enormous chip on your shoulder.
Who makes up the majority of people in prisons? White males, average age 20-24.
That said, I find your logic a bit curious here:
Who makes up the majority of people in prisons? Black MalesWho makes up the majority of people who commit violent crimes? Black males