D&D General “‘Scantily Clad and Well Proportioned’: Sexism and Gender Stereotyping in the Gaming Worlds of TSR and Dungeons & Dragons.”

[Hussar]

The author of the article isn’t judging the piece though, they’re citing an accurate historical fact that the piece caused an uproar when it appeared on the cover of Dragon Magazine.

But you’re missing the point of the argument.

The point is to deflect from the actual issue and endlessly nit pick specific examples until you finally give up in exhaustion.

If this example doesn’t achieve that goal, we only have to wait until another example is used and then the cycle stats again.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Yeah, all the species descriptions are vague. On the one hand, the fact that D&D species are trying to account for 10 unique worlds worth of lore by not contradicting them is good, but it does lead to "X is a thing." Style writing.

I guess let the setting guides do the heavy lifting...

It would involve more word count dedicated to something, but I wish they would've used examples of what a tiefling could be.

A tiefling could be an heir to a fallen empire where diabolical pacts and fiendish magic were common practice.

A tiefling could be reviled for their fiendish heritage by an ignorant and terrified populace who would rather cling to old superstitions than to judge a tiefling individually.

A tiefling could be a manifestation of a family curse, born to human parents.

A tiefling could be a specialized adaptation to living in close proximity to the lower planes, where a community of similar tieflings congregate.

A tiefling could be the child of a union between fiends and humans, either a direct descendant of a fiend or archfiend, or one member of a family lineage where tieflings occur like a genetic trait.

2024e is often a little short on the inspirational material, sadly.

 

[FrogReaver]

Dudes continue to compare a masculine power fantasy with a masculine sexual fantasy as if they're equally interchangeable with feminine power fantasy and feminine sexual fantasy.

‘…Looks at the men on the covers of wife’s large collection of often fantasy themed romance novels’

Is the conclusion I’m supposed to make that she’s sexist?

 

[Bagpuss]

Boris Vallejo, that is pretty on par for him

Yeah but if you look at how much flesh the men he was painting at the time, it wasn't that he was sexist, just that he sexualised and idealised the human form male or female.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

‘…Looks at the men on the covers of wife’s large collection of often fantasy themed romance novels’

Is the conclusion I’m supposed to make that she’s sexist?

What on earth does that have to do with what was said? This is a complete non-sequitur. Doubly bad because you have--as is all too common--transmuted an argument about patterns into an attack on your wife, thus making it personal and making your wife out to be victimized by the people calling for change.

Furthermore, people can like and buy things that contain something not-so-great! That's a real thing that actually happens! And even further, consider things like Barbie dolls. They portray an outright impossible beauty standard, and help reinforce sexist stereotypes. There are also plenty of children who played with such dolls despite not having a sexist bone in their body. It's almost like the issue isn't one of "do people buy X" but rather "why is it 99.9% of our options are X and X alone?"

 

[Bedrockgames]

But you’re missing the point of the argument.

The point is to deflect from the actual issue and endlessly nit pick specific examples until you finally give up in exhaustion.

If this example doesn’t achieve that goal, we only have to wait until another example is used and then the cycle stats again.

This wasn't my point at all. The article was using that image as part of its overall case. I do think @Charlaquin raised good points about what the article actually said about the painting, which is why I didn't push back on their post

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yeah but if you look at how much flesh the men he was painting at the time, it wasn't that he was sexist, just that he sexualised and idealised the human form male or female.

This argument requires us to answer two very important questions.

1. Is all sexualization the same? Or can some sexualization be more favorable to one group than another?
2. If examples of sexualization can be different, is it possible for those differences to be biased with regard to gender or sex?

I think the extremely obvious answer to the first question is "it absolutely is not all the same, it can vary in both degree and in goal or purpose." And the second is like it: HELL YES sexualization is biased along gender lines, male characters get sexualized power fantasies for men, while female characters get sexualized object fantasies for men.

It is quite rare to have the reverse, where a work focuses almost purely on women getting sexualized power fantasies for women and men getting sexualized object fantasies for women. If such works exist, they're quite rare.

 

[Charlaquin]

This wasn't my point at all. The article was using that image as part of its overall case. I do think @Charlaquin raised good points about what the article actually said about the painting, which is why I didn't push back on their post

*her post.

I generally extend the benefit of the doubt when people get this wrong, because “they” is an acceptable neutral pronoun when you don’t know someone’s preference, and people don’t always think to check subtitles for pronouns. But I’ve made several posts in the last few pages directly related to being a trans woman.

 

[MGibster]

I remember how I felt after the health ed discussion at high school in the 80s about having children out of marriage and realising how out of step my family's values were. Unmarried couple with two children. Which they still are after 60 years.

I started a new job when I was around 19. One day, during the first week, some coworkers, two ladies, sat down and starting grilling me with personal questions. Mostly innocuous questions like "Where are you from? Do you have any siblings?" etc., etc.

Coworker: Does your sister have any kids?
Me (Thinking I can answer the next question at the same time): She's not married.
Coworker visibly perturbed: You don't have to be married to have kids.

Apparently I struck a nerve. But that's my example of realizing my family's values weren't shared by everyone.

 

[FrogReaver]

What on earth does that have to do with what was said? This is a complete non-sequitur. Doubly bad because you have--as is all too common--transmuted an argument about patterns into an attack on your wife, thus making it personal and making your wife out to be victimized by the people calling for change.

When men are being accused of sexism because they make art featuring scantily clad and well proportioned women or because they are buying such material, I think it’s fair to ask if women engaged in similar behavior will be treated the same.

But given this accusatory post you just made I don’t think we can have that discussion.