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

[Frozen_Heart]

I've never had issues with things like Conan where both the men and women are scantily clad.

It's the numerous pieces of media where all the men have serious armour, while the women are still in insanely sexualised armour which I can't stand.

(This topic also annoys me as my browser tells me I'm spelling 'armour' wrong every time I type it.)

 

[FrogReaver]

I missed those. I just don't typically look at peoples sigs when I am responding to them

No one does.

and I tend to use 'they' when I am unsure (I also don't read every post a person makes in a thread). If I missed it in a place where you were responding to me, then I apologize

I tend to use he. While there’s more women gamers now, it’s still a space skewing toward men. So when in doubt I go with the probabilities. If I get it wrong I figure I’ll be corrected soon enough and can adjust at that point.

 

[Charlaquin]

For my edification, don’t some trans women use different pronouns then ‘her’ or am I mistaken?

Oh, some most definitely do! That’s part of why I include my pronouns in my subtitle.

In general, and especially in meat space, I always recommend asking someone if you aren’t sure what they prefer. I can only speak for myself of course, but for me, my dysphoria is set off significantly worse from people stammering “Sir… I mean miss… ter… misses?” than just getting it confidently wrong and being amenable when I correct them. Neutral pronouns and forms of address are of course preferable to either, but I will still correct them, and in any case I would much rather they just ask me. But the worst is when I overhear them whispering to someone else that they aren’t sure what to call me. Like, it’s ok, I’m aware that my appearance gives mixed signals, I won’t be offended by you being unsure. But if you just make a guess or ask me, we can get that awkward part over with faster. Hemming and hawing about it, or talking about me when you think I can’t hear you is much more uncomfortable for both of us.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

How can we talk about a pattern without using examples of that pattern?

How can we talk about a pattern if we aren't allowed to give examples that were so egregious that, even in the context of a culture openly cavalier about sexism, got called out even by the higher-ups as having gone too far?

Because that's what Hussar is talking about here. Your argument boils down to, "You cannot use any specific example as demonstration of the pattern, because then you're unfairly picking on that artist/that piece/etc."

If we do that, if we never cite any concrete examples, the guaranteed result is that someone--probably not you, but someone--will "reasonably" point out that, since there aren't any examples, there can't possibly be an actual pattern.

It's the perfect catch-22. Cite examples, you're picking on creators, silencing voices, disparaging "good art" etc., without proving the pattern exists. Avoid citing examples, you're asserting a pattern with no evidence at all.

 

[Charlaquin]

I missed those. I just don't typically look at peoples sigs when I am responding to them and I tend to use 'they' when I am unsure (I also don't read every post a person makes in a thread). If I missed it in a place where you were responding to me, then I apologize

No problem! Like I said, I tend to grant the benefit of the doubt in these situations, and I believe you that it wasn’t intentional.

 

[mamba]

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

no, but that the publishers know what sells / use very similar covers for romance novels

 

[mamba]

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.

agreed, he did that for either sex, did not think that needed mentioning. He mostly painted them as male fantasies in either case however

 

[Bedrockgames]

How can we talk about a pattern without using examples of that pattern?

How can we talk about a pattern if we aren't allowed to give examples that were so egregious that, even in the context of a culture openly cavalier about sexism, got called out even by the higher-ups as having gone too far?

Because that's what Hussar is talking about here. Your argument boils down to, "You cannot use any specific example as demonstration of the pattern, because then you're unfairly picking on that artist/that piece/etc."

If we do that, if we never cite any concrete examples, the guaranteed result is that someone--probably not you, but someone--will "reasonably" point out that, since there aren't any examples, there can't possibly be an actual pattern.

It's the perfect catch-22. Cite examples, you're picking on creators, silencing voices, disparaging "good art" etc., without proving the pattern exists. Avoid citing examples, you're asserting a pattern with no evidence at all.

My argument was we should be careful about painting with a broad brush (I didn't even really weigh in on the article's overall thesis). So I was saying don't judge one piece of art by the pattern you are seeing with all the other art. If you want to talk patterns, go ahead (people can disagree but I get that you can point to trends). I was using that image as an example of actually very well executed art that doesn't deserve rebuke but was getting swept up in the critique

 

[Bagpuss]

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.

I would like to know how you would tell the difference?

If you look at images of sexualised images of men aimed at women (such as the covers of romance novels, or Magic Mike/Chippendales, they are frequently very similar if not identical to what gets classed as power fantasies, for men. Similarly female models women in magazines aimed at women are frequently athletic and showing more skin than they would in everyday situations.

Both men and women like sexy, athletic attractive people and art has always depicted that, although tastes may change over the centuries, sometimes pale skin is attractive, other times a tan, sometimes a fuller figure, etc.

 

[Steampunkette]

‘…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?

Yeah, that's -clearly- the conclusion. Yup. Makes perfect sense.

Certainly there is no difference between the rampaging barbarian power fantasy with angry aggressive features and the gentle but strong lover on the cover of a romance novel looking with tender affection toward the one he loves.

Surely the fact that they both have portions of their chests and arms exposed to show off muscle definition clearly results in the same cultural expectations of power and sex. Hoo. Rah.

Like I'm not sure what you expected, here, FrogReaver, but the differences are massively clear in framing and style even if similar visual elements do have carryover.

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.

After you first post's accusatory tone?

Anyway. That's -not- what the article is about. The article is about the overall tendency of early D&D writing and play to be incredibly male dominated and homosocial, creating very little space for women to play the game and participate in the space while in some ways being explicitly against making that space when it was requested.

Like women asking for more varied art that doesn't treat them like eye candy being roundly, and callously, responded to with the exact same sort of response that you've created, here. Rather than consider the overall effect and the aggregate impact on women gamers, you've chosen to make it exclusively about how "Artists are being called Sexist" and making that a hill to die on.

Which, y'know, fine. It's not my job to tell you which hills to die on. It's just a weird choice.