| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Getting back to OP's question. Gyronna is the main one that comes to mind. "No men! Except maybe eunuchs, and then only maybe...."
I don't think Lamashtu has any of that. A bit more focused on females, but that's her shtick. She births monsters. If you don't birth, well she's not as into you.
The only real misogynist divinity I can think of is Kostchtchie.
Asmodeus falls in that direction because he is all about power. Human males generally have more power than human females, so he favors human males over females. In another species, the generality might be different. Either way he gives power to those worthy of it it, and cares nothing for vagaries the meat-sack worn. The First is beyond such petty concerns. We are but worms before our Prince.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it's not the default in Golarion for men to have more power than women, and we've explicitly stated that Asmodeus is a misogynist.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet Cheliax has several terrifying ladies in power with links to Asmodeus
Remember the Thrunes APPROACHED HIM. He's not going to turn down an opportunity to corrupt an entire nation, even if it's a woman coming up with the plan. A may be a misogynist, but he also has priorities.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it amusing that people don't have any trouble imagining him just being "accidentally" misogynist because he's into "survival of the fittest" and men just happen to be the fittest, but the idea that he is a misogynist but puts his pragmatism above his misogyny is somehow difficult to believe.
Misogynists sometimes promote women. They just treat us as if we're exceptional, and Not Like Other Women, when they do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it's not the default in Golarion for men to have more power than women, and we've explicitly stated that Asmodeus is a misogynist.
So you've said before, and it's canon, even it does mean some substantial differences between pathfinder humans and the ones I'm more familiar with.
I find it amusing that people don't have any trouble imagining him just being "accidentally" misogynist because he's into "survival of the fittest" and men just happen to be the fittest, but the idea that he is a misogynist but puts his pragmatism above his misogyny is somehow difficult to believe.
Misogynists sometimes promote women. They just treat us as if we're exceptional, and Not Like Other Women, when they do.
Why would Asmodeus have a bias against women/females? He kind of predates the entire concept of gender/sex. It seems like an odd trait for 'him' to have. I can see him being misogynistic because he believes women are weaker, whether they are or not is another matter, and I don't think that counts as accidental. I see him being racist towards halfings for a similar reason.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it's not the default in Golarion for men to have more power than women, and we've explicitly stated that Asmodeus is a misogynist.So you've said before, and it's canon, even it does mean some substantial differences between pathfinder humans and the ones I'm more familiar with.
There's a difference in how their societies developed. That doesn't mean that they're inherently different.
Unless you're implying that Earth women are inherently inferior to men.
*eyebrow lift*
Is that what you're saying?
Either way he gives power to those worthy of it
Pray continue.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be fair, some of the ways the Lashunta are most visible can seem sexist. One example is that most/all of the lashunta NPCs thus-far are female (to my memory right now) and the lashunta themselves are based off the pulpy sci-fi "space babes on dinosaurs" of the 60s and 70s. Kind of naturally lends itself to questions of that nature, but there is a post on the forums by one of the guys that put them in pathfinder about how they're supposed to be a very not-problematic race.
One thing that I'm surprised no one has mentioned about the Drow (in Golarion specifically) is that the male drow, when turned into driders, are explicitly stated to turn monstrous and have bug faces, while the females remain beautiful from the waist up. This is stated in whatever book has the hideous driders on the cover, for those who like to look stuff up. Imo that rather tips the scale towards the "drow are explicitly something" route, whether misandry or otherwise.
Yeah, I think there's definitely a "something" in how drow originated. Call me delusional here, but I think maybe it's possible that drow were designed to appeal to a certain demographic.
I just can't think of what. I could swear the art of drow and driders tended to pander towards a specific type of gamer.
Maybe people who like...spiders?
I'll play Rat's Advocate here and say that Golarion cultures will have to have developed very differently to avoid gender biases. I'm not an expert on gender studies, but any primitive culture where arm strength is the main way of generating social power (money) is going to develop biases in favor of those who have "very good arms". And having an easier time developing muscle mass is also handy when the society turns violent.
That said, distinct cultures could easily develop. They have, in the real world—to my understanding, it was common in parts of medieval Europe for Jewish women to be the business owners so men had time to study and become learned, since Jewish people were sort of limited in the professions they could take and education was pretty crucial to get anywhere.
It's a bit of a trick having those cultures be so universal in a setting (unless there are misogynist cultures I'm forgetting), but that's really just a bit of a coincidence, not inherently unrealistic.
I'd love to hear some thoughts from the Paizo folk on why things might have developed differently, honestly. I bet it's really interesting. I mean, we all know that the main reason is just sensible gaming logic—it's a more inclusive and fun setting this way, and allows for a wider range of characters. Flexibility is always good for a tabletop game world. But I know some of the Paizo staff are really learned on this subject. I'm sure they have ideas.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, Ms. Price, I never got the chance to say this to you at the banquet (it's all a bit of a blur, but I'm pretty sure I was at your table), but I just in general really love your posts on these sorts of topics. Whenever I see a Jessica Price post pop up on a thread, I know I'm about to Learn Things.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is sort of funny, since Golarion and Earth are technically in the same multiverse. Maybe some goblins just got jammed in Golarion's evolutionary cogs and everything turned out a bit wonky. Or maybe they got in Earth's and that's why everything's so screwed up now.
Actually, it's not the default in Golarion for men to have more power than women, and we've explicitly stated that Asmodeus is a misogynist.So you've said before, and it's canon, even it does mean some substantial differences between pathfinder humans and the ones I'm more familiar with.There's a difference in how their societies developed. That doesn't mean that they're inherently different.
Unless you're implying that Earth women are inherently inferior to men.
*eyebrow lift*
Is that what you're saying?
Sexual dimorphism is a thing. Men and women are not the same. "Inherently different", if you will.
"inferior" is a value judgement and one I wouldn't make.
However, men are larger and tend to more upper body muscle. This is a significant advantage in most primitive conflict and in some forms of hunting. It's reasonable to expect that men will be more likely to specialize in combat and for that to lead to male dominance. And we see that nearly everywhere historically. With variations and a few exceptions, certainly. But our basic sexual dimorphism pushes us that way.
In PF/Golarion, not only is there magic, which is another route to winning fights and thus pushes towards more equality, but there also appear to be no effective differences between men and women in terms of stats - or at least they are below the resolution of the system. No difference between the average stats. No difference between the highest most developed ones either - which seem to go well beyond Earth human maximums, even without explicit magic.
Only if you assume it's a given that combat is the way to determine leadership. That's the way things went in many--but not all--Earth cultures, but it isn't a given, and even if it is, generals and kings haven't historically always been the best fighters among their people.
The idea that physical, hand-to-hand combat is the default way to select a leader is in itself a misogynist assumption.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
By the way, Ms. Price, I never got the chance to say this to you at the banquet (it's all a bit of a blur, but I'm pretty sure I was at your table), but I just in general really love your posts on these sorts of topics. Whenever I see a Jessica Price post pop up on a thread, I know I'm about to Learn Things.
I had no idea one of the people at my table was you! :-) The banquet is, indeed, always a bit blurry. Next time tell me your forum name--I like you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The idea that physical, hand-to-hand combat is the default way to select a leader is in itself a misogynist assumption.
How?
Only if you assume it's a given that combat is the way to determine leadership. That's the way things went in many--but not all--Earth cultures, but it isn't a given, and even if it is, generals and kings haven't historically always been the best fighters among their people.
Hmm, that's not exactly what he said. Males have been the default military leaders and held greater political power in every major civilization. That could purely be a quirk of societal development on our planet, but I don't think so.
As for women being inferior, you said it not me. I'd go with different, as thejeff mentioned. I'd also add to that list of differences gestation.
I believe these biological differences are a primary factor in the development of different societal roles for men and women. The only factor, no, but a crucial one.
Pray continue.
Sure. Where'd you like me to go with it?
It's a bit of a trick having those cultures be so universal in a setting (unless there are misogynist cultures I'm forgetting), but that's really just a bit of a coincidence, not inherently unrealistic.
I'd love to hear some thoughts from the Paizo folk on why things might have developed differently, honestly. I bet it's really interesting. I mean, we all know that the main reason is just sensible gaming logic—it's a more inclusive and fun setting this way, and allows for a wider range of characters. Flexibility is always good for a tabletop game world. But I know some of the Paizo staff are really learned on this subject. I'm sure they have ideas.
Same. Why did thing develop differently on Golarion? And why did the same patterns hold true for the majority of humanoid species? I am genuinely curious to hear thoughts, head-canons are fine, on why. We should probably move that to a different thread though.
I would also really like to hear thoughts on why Asmodeus is misogynist. Like I said, to me he seems like he ought to predate the concept. If I remember right he generally hates mortals as a whole, so maybe he hates women because they give birth to more mortals?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, it's not the default in Golarion for men to have more power than women, and we've explicitly stated that Asmodeus is a misogynist.So you've said before, and it's canon, even it does mean some substantial differences between pathfinder humans and the ones I'm more familiar with.There's a difference in how their societies developed. That doesn't mean that they're inherently different.
Unless you're implying that Earth women are inherently inferior to men.
*eyebrow lift*
Is that what you're saying?
Either way he gives power to those worthy of itPray continue.
I think what he was referring to that Earth societies don't have a great track record of establishing gender equality out of the gate.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal."
The idea that physical, hand-to-hand combat is the default way to select a leader is in itself a misogynist assumption.How?
Only if you assume it's a given that combat is the way to determine leadership. That's the way things went in many--but not all--Earth cultures, but it isn't a given, and even if it is, generals and kings haven't historically always been the best fighters among their people.You're right, not all. Males have only been the default leaders and held greater political power in every major civilization. That could purely be a quirk of societal development on our planet, but I don't think so.
As for women being inferior, you said it not me. I'd go with different, as thejeff mentioned.
What a weak defense of your obvious implication. I'm done interacting with you, since you're obviously being disingenuous, and I don't waste my time with disingenuous people.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it amusing that people don't have any trouble imagining him just being "accidentally" misogynist because he's into "survival of the fittest" and men just happen to be the fittest, but the idea that he is a misogynist but puts his pragmatism above his misogyny is somehow difficult to believe.
Misogynists sometimes promote women. They just treat us as if we're exceptional, and Not Like Other Women, when they do.
Excellent point. And one that is indeed true for all kind of prejudices
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Random language nerd aside, Men in the context of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." includes women. In English the default in a mixed or unknown gender situation is the masculine form. That's why mankind is humanity and womankind is well... only the women. Of course in this case Men also meant specifically non-bondaged land-owners from groups we like, but hey. We got there, mostly.
The idea that masculine pronouns and signifiers are the default for mixed group is itself a sign of bias against women.
But anyway, I think they pretty much meant men when they said men.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Erastil was once seen as misogynist. It was clarified that this was definitely not the case. Erastil is a Good deity
Asmodeus has been clearly stated as misogynist. Asmodeus is Evil
Cheliax is the preferred example of slavery endorsing state. And preferably of small nice fellows. Cheliax is Evil
So yes, Golarion strongly reflects modern sensibilities
Ah, I found something regarding "all men are created equal."
Thomas Jefferson did not make the same distinction in declaring that "all men are created equal" and "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." In a time when women, having no vote, could neither give nor withhold consent, Jefferson had to be using the word men in its principal sense of "males", and it probably never occurred to him that anyone would think otherwise.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Random language nerd aside, Men in the context of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." includes women. In English the default in a mixed or unknown gender situation is the masculine form. That's why mankind is humanity and womankind is well... only the women. Of course in this case Men also meant specifically non-bondaged land-owners from groups we like, but hey. We got there, mostly.The idea that masculine pronouns and signifiers are the default for mixed group is itself a sign of bias against women.
But anyway, I think they pretty much meant men when they said men.
If the default was feminine, would it then mean that there is no bias ?
I think they for the most part did not consider the matter of women because that was not yet the topic they wanted or needed to adress.
|
|
Ah, I found something regarding "all men are created equal."
Thomas Jefferson did not make the same distinction in declaring that "all men are created equal" and "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." In a time when women, having no vote, could neither give nor withhold consent, Jefferson had to be using the word men in its principal sense of "males", and it probably never occurred to him that anyone would think otherwise.
And I think it very likely he was thinking of white men. The sentence aimed at tackling their problem at the time which was aristocracy and the royalty. That some white men were above other white men by virtue of birth
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If the default was feminine, would it then mean that there is no bias ?
Random language nerd aside, Men in the context of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." includes women. In English the default in a mixed or unknown gender situation is the masculine form. That's why mankind is humanity and womankind is well... only the women. Of course in this case Men also meant specifically non-bondaged land-owners from groups we like, but hey. We got there, mostly.The idea that masculine pronouns and signifiers are the default for mixed group is itself a sign of bias against women.
But anyway, I think they pretty much meant men when they said men.
Nothing I said would or should imply that. It seems like a red herring at best.
I think they for the most part did not consider the matter of women because that was not yet the topic they wanted or needed to adress.
I think that for the most part they did not consider women because women could not vote and thus could not consent to be governed by anyone - and they were not considering giving women the right to vote, given how long it took*. Considering how women were treated at the time, it is an immense stretch to assume anyone who wrote "all men are created equal" actually meant men and women. The exclusion of women from such considerations - as you suggest - also implies a significant bias against women.
* August 18, 1920. 144 years.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I think it very likely he was thinking of white men. The sentence aimed at tackling their problem at the time which was aristocracy and the royalty. That some white men were above other white men by virtue of birthAh, I found something regarding "all men are created equal."
Thomas Jefferson did not make the same distinction in declaring that "all men are created equal" and "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." In a time when women, having no vote, could neither give nor withhold consent, Jefferson had to be using the word men in its principal sense of "males", and it probably never occurred to him that anyone would think otherwise.
Of course he was thinking strictly of white men, given the racist and misogynist standards of the time, standards that he benefited from (for example, he owned slaves). You make it sound like it was simply a benign focus based on opposing aristocracy and royalty, when it was not benign at all for those who were not white and those who were not men.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ah, I found something regarding "all men are created equal."
Thomas Jefferson did not make the same distinction in declaring that "all men are created equal" and "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." In a time when women, having no vote, could neither give nor withhold consent, Jefferson had to be using the word men in its principal sense of "males", and it probably never occurred to him that anyone would think otherwise.
And when I see Thomas Jefferon
I'ma compel him to include women in the sequelWORK
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Of course he was thinking strictly of white men, given the racist and misogynist standards of the time, standards that he benefited from (for example, he owned slaves). You make it sound like it was simply a benign focus based on opposing aristocracy and royalty, when it was not benign at all for those who were not white and those who were not men.And I think it very likely he was thinking of white men. The sentence aimed at tackling their problem at the time which was aristocracy and the royalty. That some white men were above other white men by virtue of birthAh, I found something regarding "all men are created equal."
Thomas Jefferson did not make the same distinction in declaring that "all men are created equal" and "governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." In a time when women, having no vote, could neither give nor withhold consent, Jefferson had to be using the word men in its principal sense of "males", and it probably never occurred to him that anyone would think otherwise.
Actually I agree with you here completely. If my words did not convey it properly, I blame my lack of mastery of English which is a foreign language to me
I just meant to say that his words were meant to deal with the aristocratical system and that he was not taking into account the other injustices. That these words IMO did not aim at belittling women, nor at including non-white men.
That said I think these struggles against aristocracy anchored the idea that superiority granted by birth was not real and that privileges hanging on that were not only unfair but actually went against reality. Which naturally leads to fighting the idea that men would be superior to women or that white people would be superior to non-white people
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, sure, Thomas didn't set out to say, "I'm gonna just screw over non-white dudes today." But people rarely do. I doubt the current situation in Hollywood came about because someone down the line said, "Muahahaha, I am going to deliberately only support white dude actors!" It doesn't mean there's not a problem somewhere in there, and it doesn't mean that the product isn't oppressive. I think that's what Belle is trying to underline.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well, sure, Thomas didn't set out to say, "I'm gonna just screw over non-white dudes today." But people rarely do. I doubt the current situation in Hollywood came about because someone down the line said, "Muahahaha, I am going to deliberately only support white dude actors!" It doesn't mean there's not a problem somewhere in there, and it doesn't mean that the product isn't oppressive. I think that's what Belle is trying to underline.
I see what you mean and it is true that I missed this. My apologies.
I felt that I was suspected of leniency towards misogynists or racists which is not something I take lightly. My deepest apologies to Belle Sorciere and the other readers if my words felt dismissive. Such is most definitely not my intent
KC, my greatest thanks for clarifying this
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hags.Harpies.
But I think when you get to a species of only women using males of other species to reproduce you're talking something more basic than misandry.Harpies don't necessarily hate men--they're just all female.
Hags explicitly hate men--and, I mean, everyone else, but they eat their male children.
Hags give birth to males? Doesn't that mean that there is potential for male hags? That is interesting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hags give birth to males? Doesn't that mean that there is potential for male hags? That is interesting.Hags.Harpies.
But I think when you get to a species of only women using males of other species to reproduce you're talking something more basic than misandry.Harpies don't necessarily hate men--they're just all female.
Hags explicitly hate men--and, I mean, everyone else, but they eat their male children.
Yeah, I didn't know that bit either.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Misogynists sometimes promote women. They just treat us as if we're exceptional, and Not Like Other Women, when they do.
That's a pretty weird complaint if the reality is that there is are relevant differences in the sexes. The "misogynists" could be right about that exceptionality and demonstrably acting fairly! Obviously a woman who could qualify as an NFL linebacker would be exceptional and Not Like Other Women if she could pull it off.
Or in Pathfinder terms let's say the Lashunta government wants their top diplomats to be intelligent, wise, and charismatic, with at least a 14 score in each attribute. (Source of upcoming percentages. I know there's some rounding error in these.)
Both sexes would need to roll a 12 (+2) in Intelligence, so 25.9% of each sex would qualify.
Males would need a 16 (-2) to qualify in Wisdom, so 1.9% would qualify. Females would need to roll a 14, so 9.3% would qualify.
Males would need a 14 to qualify in Charisma, so 9.3% would qualify. Females would need a 12 (+2) to qualify, so 25.9% would qualify.
If these value are independent then .259 x .093 x .259 females, or only 0.6239% would qualify. For males .259 x .019 x .093, or 0.0458% would qualify. Using unrounded numbers, 13.6 times as many females as males, proportionally, would qualify.
Assuming both sexes are equally interested in serving in the Lashunta foreign service, a senior Lashunta diplomat wouldn't be misandrist at all if she noted that a male colleague was exceptional and Not Like Other Male Lashunta. Rude, perhaps, especially if the male colleague was in denial about males being less wise and females being more charismatic and that society put more value on feelings than acknowledging reality, but not misandrist.
These proportions are flipped if you want straight 14s in physical stats. And they get much worse if you raise the numbers, because modest differences in averages lead to really big discrepancies on the outer edges of the bell curve.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Random language nerd aside, Men in the context of "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal." includes women. In English the default in a mixed or unknown gender situation is the masculine form. That's why mankind is humanity and womankind is well... only the women. Of course in this case Men also meant specifically non-bondaged land-owners from groups we like, but hey. We got there, mostly.
It was not a given at the time. Keep in mind, that when the Constitution was adopted after the fiasco of the Articles of Confederation, Women that DID have the right to vote in the colonies which had instituted it, LOST IT, as the Constitution did not extend the right to vote to anyone other than white males.
That right was not restored until well over a century and a half later with the suffrage movement.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Erastil was once seen as misogynist.
To be frank, it was an overblown misconception whose only basis it's proponents gave was his preferences for families based on marriage.
It's not much different than the dogged determination to impugn misandry because Golarion does not follow the Earth model of male-dominated societies.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Misogynists sometimes promote women. They just treat us as if we're exceptional, and Not Like Other Women, when they do.That's a pretty weird complaint if the reality is that there is are relevant differences in the sexes. The "misogynists" could be right about that exceptionality and demonstrably acting fairly! Obviously a woman who could qualify as an NFL linebacker would be exceptional and Not Like Other Women if she could pull it off.
Or in Pathfinder terms let's say the Lashunta government wants their top diplomats to be intelligent, wise, and charismatic, with at least a 14 score in each attribute. (Source of upcoming percentages. I know there's some rounding error in these.)
Both sexes would need to roll a 12 (+2) in Intelligence, so 25.9% of each sex would qualify.
Males would need a 16 (-2) to qualify in Wisdom, so 1.9% would qualify. Females would need to roll a 14, so 9.3% would qualify.
Males would need a 14 to qualify in Charisma, so 9.3% would qualify. Females would need a 12 (+2) to qualify, so 25.9% would qualify.
If these value are independent then .259 x .093 x .259 females, or only 0.6239% would qualify. For males .259 x .019 x .093, or 0.0458% would qualify. Using unrounded numbers, 13.6 times as many females as males, proportionally, would qualify.
Assuming both sexes are equally interested in serving in the Lashunta foreign service, a senior Lashunta diplomat wouldn't be misandrist at all if she noted that a male colleague was exceptional and Not Like Other Male Lashunta. Rude, perhaps, especially if the male colleague was in denial about males being less wise and females being more charismatic and that society put more value on feelings than acknowledging reality, but not misandrist.
These proportions are flipped if you want straight 14s in physical stats. And they get much worse if you raise the numbers, because modest differences in averages lead...
That wasn't the point, and I think you're aware of that.
|
|
Erastil was once seen as misogynist.To be frank, it was an overblown misconception whose only basis it's proponents gave was his preferences for families based on marriage.
It's not much different than the dogged determination to impugn misandry because Golarion does not follow the Earth model of male-dominated societies.
Concerning Erastil, I believe there was some actual text in books that did clearly describe him as sexist bordering on misogynist. And the many arguments from the threads I read clearly came from the people who felt that a god holding this kind of viewpoint could not be Good.
I am not clear about what impugn means. I feel that I am missing an important nuance here. If you can elaborate on this point I would greatly appreciate it :-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Supposedly no one (From the demographic you're talking about) wants to see attractive men... And yet, when we do see them, it's because of male power fantasy. It's... Funny.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Supposedly no one (From the demographic you're talking about) wants to see attractive men... And yet, when we do see them, it's because of male power fantasy. It's... Funny.
There's a difference between male power fantasies and men designed to be sexy to people who are attracted to men. Take a look, for example, at Glamour's 100 Sexiest Men features--that is, the results of actual women voting--and compare those guys to the guys in video games. There's not much overlap in appearance. The Glamour poll winners are pretty diverse, but there's a conspicuous absence of body-builder types on most years' results.
Men in games are designed to be attractive to straight men--that is, to be what they want to be--not to women or gay men. I sat through enough marketing meetings for Gears of War and the like to know that "is this male character attractive to women?" never came up.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Supposedly no one (From the demographic you're talking about) wants to see attractive men... And yet, when we do see them, it's because of male power fantasy. It's... Funny.
Two things I saw that may shed some light on this :
1) There are MANY adult magazines with naked women. They are mostly bought by men. There are some adult magazines with naked men. They are also mostly bought by men
2) I was student in a class of 60 people with 2/3rd guys. We asked the guys to rank the ladies in order of how hot they looked. They did exactly this : a gorgeous lady would always be near the top even if she was an awful person
We asked the ladies to rank the guys in the same way. But their ranking actually reflected a mix of looks and personality. A really nice and cool but average looking guy was ranked higher than a handsome jerk
I take this to mean that women on the whole put less importance on the purely visual stimulus than men do
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Supposedly no one (From the demographic you're talking about) wants to see attractive men... And yet, when we do see them, it's because of male power fantasy. It's... Funny.Two things I saw that may shed some light on this :
1) There are MANY adult magazines with naked women. They are mostly bought by men. There are some adult magazines with naked men. They are also mostly bought by men
2) I was student in a class of 60 people with 2/3rd guys. We asked the guys to rank the ladies in order of how hot they looked. They did exactly this : a gorgeous lady would always be near the top even if she was an awful person
We asked the ladies to rank the guys in the same way. But their ranking actually reflected a mix of looks and personality. A really nice and cool but average looking guy was ranked higher than a handsome jerk
I take this to mean that women on the whole put less importance on the purely visual stimulus than men do
They might. Actually, they probably do. But my point was not that. It was about the kind of snap judgements made about a monolithical nebulous demographic that can be used to support two opposite arguments without so much as blinking.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Supposedly no one (From the demographic you're talking about) wants to see attractive men... And yet, when we do see them, it's because of male power fantasy. It's... Funny.
There's two different points here:
One is to your first part, about the demographic Kobold Cleaver refers to, which is true: they don't care to see attractive men, they don't make effort to include them, and those times that they do it's accidental.
Here is a thread I made a while ago where I just went through the Pathfinder bestiary and tallied the number of female-only creatures that are explicitly stated to mate with human males. Included are the number of male-only creatures that have their sexual activity referenced. Of the men, 3 might be considered attractive while the third is a frog/fishman. Some, specifically in Pathfinder material alone, are used inappropriately//poorly, such as incubi (which one might assume would be great infiltrators, seducers, or masterminds) which to date have only been used in Pathfinder material as cannon-fodder guards or gladiator champions.
There are more than 10 times as many female creatures that are explicitly stated to have sex with or seduce human males, with some 44+ entries. to be clear, 44 > 4 by an exceptionally large margin.
There is also a sub-point about the 21 core deities (I included Aroden, as he is mentioned so much) and how, of the 8 female deities, 5 are depicted in extremely revealing clothing (or no clothing at all), and 3 of them are explicitly stated to have sex as a significant part of their portfolio or identity, while zero male deities are depicted in anything revealing (much less fully nude) and only Cayden Caliean is stated to have sex (and that is done in the context of being a shameless womanizer).
When we actually take inventory of Pathfinder (and DnD material as a whole), the evidence is very not in favor of your first point. Material for people who appreciate attractive males very rarely gets created.
Your second point is that, when it does appear, people (i.e. the ones that you think that it is targeted at) dismiss it as a "male power fantasy", which is often true; those people (me being one of them) do dismiss it, because it it wasn't designed for us. The shirtless male barbarian raising his great axe above his head while fighting a shirtless male orc is in no way meant for those who appreciate attractive men, and it's certainly not the equivalent of opening a book to see an attractive demoness wearing very little clothing casting a spell at a priest. That the artist might have the talent and skill to draw barbarian and orc as attractive is incidental - the point is that the original intent of the people who commissioned both pieces was to appeal to one section of their audience's personal preferences, to the exclusion of another part of said audience.
I agree. While I do appreciate the deliberateness in making the Lashunta men not... total garbage... I do really struggle with the fact that they turned out they way they did in the first place. In some ways I wish that the lashunta had no males, and the lashunta women could be dismissed as simply another male fantasy, rather than this half-step that sometimes seems to lampshade them instead of letting it get called out for what it is. I mean, in some ways it's better than the stereotypical fantasy races because the devs are therefore challenged to justify how it's NOT sexist... but I don't know. In many ways it feels like more of the same, except worse, because while I can pretend that my orc women are just as brutish as the men, or that my male halfling is super handsome, lashunta lore makes it pretty explicit that it's just not possible to have that sort of character. Not because of the stats, but because the sexual dimorphism is so extreme in the opposite directions.