D&D General Just sweeping dirty dishes under the rug: D&D, Sexism, and the '70s

[niklinna]

You don't have to guess. If you read the whole discussion before responding you'd have seen where I repeatedly mentioned that Dave Sutherland took the pose from a Playboy pictorial, and linked to an article about it.


Again, if you actually read the discussion before responding, you'd see this is ground we've already covered.

No one's objecting to sexy art (as a general rule, a few letter writers to Dragon in the 80s and Jim Ward's Angry Mothers from Heck excepted).

We're talking about an overall culture in gaming which made women less than welcome, and in which editorial policy was generally to dismiss their concerns when women wrote in to make constructive suggestions, complain, or express concerns.

Pinup-style art is just a data point in the overall picture.


Nah, you missed the assignment. While hormonal young dudes can get worked up over a LOT of different things, I don't think anyone can make a reasonable case that the art for the Lizardman or Rakshasa were intended to be titillating. There are no signs of such in the composition or design. The poses aren't designed to accentuate or show off secondary sex characteristics. They're not poses which imply anything erotic at all, in distinct contrast to DCS' borrowing a Playboy pose for the Succubus.


I'm confused about your point.

I think I (and several other people in the thread, but you may not be seeing all of it) have been clear that...

A) Sexy stuff isn't a problem on its own. The problem is when only one segment of the audience is catered to, and it contributes to an unwelcoming environment for other parts of the audience. This is related to discussions of representation, too.
B) The issue has gotten better over time. Roger E Moore, as previously cited, in his editorial tenure at Dragon, took the issue more seriously and was less dismissive than Kim Mohan. Who in turn was less obnoxious than Gary was about women gamers and their concerns. "Cheesecake" art is less prominent and less monotonous than it once was. Bare chested crude drawing of an Amazon in 1974 OD&D or the naked woman hanging from a chain above a snake in 1975 Greyhawk, to Clyde Caldwell's artistically more sophisticated but still almost always pinup-style portrayals of women through the 80s up at least to 1989's White Magic cover art for Dragon #147 which he recruited a swimsuit model (IIRC) to pose for. But you can definitely see the art direction shift in 2E. And over the last three decades we've seen characters in official products displayed and shown on a much more egalitarian basis. There's still room for improvement, but things have changed over time.

Regarding the lizardman and the nixie...actually, as a scared gay kid in rural 1980s Michigan, I did look at that lizardman and particularly that nixie as (potentially) sexy. That lizardman had a pretty good build (shame about the face though!). The nixie especially was well-proportioned, cute in a badly-drawn sort of way, and most importantly, waving in a friendly and, maybe, possibly, could I hope?—inviting way.

So no, maybe they weren't intended that way, but then, nearly everything out there that was intended to be regarded as sexy was by straight men, for straight men, and sometimes for straight women (and even then as straight men wanted to be regarded). I had to take what I could get, and so, by and large, I'd guess, did straight women, and many other people who weren't straight cis men. (And for the record, was I wanted wasn't necessarily even sexy or sex objects, but anybody who looked like they could just be some kind of romantic partner.)

EDIT: Thinking back to that time some more, I now remember how equal-opporunity the art in Deities & Demigods seemed. There were the bare-breasted women, of course, but also plenty of sexy dudes in skimpy clothes who were not all jacked bodybuilders, and who were pretty clearly meant to be appealing, at least to my queer teen eye.

 

[Clint_L]

The issue isn't sexiness, it is about objectification. I am troubled that a lot of folks don't seem clear on the distinction.

Early D&D, like a lot of fantasy texts at that time (and a fair few today) often objectified women, treating them as objects for a certain presumed male gaze, and this went along with various comments and occasionally even rules that treated female characters and sometimes players distinct from their male counterparts, typically in ways that reinforced stereotypes. Consider the whole debate about "comeliness" as an attribute in the 1980s.

Many, many women pointed out then and now that this was and is a problem for them. So maybe we should stop arguing with them about it, accept that we don't always understand what the world is like for people who aren't us, and take their concerns seriously.

In general, when someone tells me "I don't like this," I try to stop doing it. I've learned that it's okay to be wrong about things. Occasionally I even learn something new as a result.

 

[Umbran]

Let's ask ourself the big question. Who was primary and overwhelming majority of customers that bought these products?

Eh, no.

RPGs were a new thing - they assumed who the customers would be, and created art for them that women often found off-putting. The art helped to create the male-dominated market. Citing the male-dominated market for the art then becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Azzy]

I just don't get why people want to push back on or downplay the reality that our hobby had (and to a lesser degree still has) a lot of sexism going on in both the products and the player base. The spin is spectacular and requires ignoring reality.

 

[GrimCo]

Eh, no.

RPGs were a new thing - they assumed who the customers would be, and created art for them that women often found off-putting. The art helped to create the male-dominated market. Citing the male-dominated market for the art then becomes self-fulfilling prophecy.

RPG's, D&D specifically, grew out from miniature war gaming. Niche hobby dominated by men in 60's and 70s. They targeted same majority demographic that played miniature war games. Yes, they made educated guess at what would their prime consumer base would be and went all in. And, as i said, ttrpgs were very niche hobby popular mostly in very niche subculture.

 

[haakon1]

I think Darlene's succubus would work better as a nymph or something (minus the horns, of course): beautiful but shy and trying to keep away from would-be "suitors".

That’s one of many ways Darlene’s drawing is better.

 

[TiQuinn]

I think I (and several other people in the thread, but you may not be seeing all of it) have been clear that...

A) Sexy stuff isn't a problem on its own. The problem is when only one segment of the audience is catered to, and it contributes to an unwelcoming environment for other parts of the audience. This is related to discussions of representation, too.

B) The issue has gotten better over time. Roger E Moore, as previously cited, in his editorial tenure at Dragon, took the issue more seriously and was less dismissive than Kim Mohan. Who was better than Tim Kask*. Who in turn was less obnoxious than Gary was about women gamers and their concerns. "Cheesecake" art is less prominent and less monotonous than it once was. Bare chested crude drawing of an Amazon in 1974 OD&D or the naked woman hanging from a chain above a snake in 1975 Greyhawk, to Clyde Caldwell's artistically more sophisticated but still almost always pinup-style portrayals of women through the 80s up at least to 1989's White Magic cover art for Dragon #147 which he recruited a swimsuit model (IIRC) to pose for. But you can definitely see the art direction shift in 2E. And over the last three decades we've seen characters in official products displayed and shown on a much more egalitarian basis. There's still room for improvement, but things have changed over time.

*(who apologized, but made the mistake of running Lakofka's laughably terrible article about women adventurers which got them and Gary hanged in effigy in a famous piece of fan art).

Fantastic breakdown of the issues.

 

[tetrasodium]

You don't have to guess. If you read the whole discussion before responding you'd have seen where I repeatedly mentioned that Dave Sutherland took the pose from a Playboy pictorial, and linked to an article about it.


Again, if you actually read the discussion before responding, you'd see this is ground we've already covered.

No one's objecting to sexy art (as a general rule, a few letter writers to Dragon in the 80s and Jim Ward's Angry Mothers from Heck excepted).

We're talking about an overall culture in gaming which made women less than welcome, and in which editorial policy was generally to dismiss their concerns when women wrote in to make constructive suggestions, complain, or express concerns.

Pinup-style art is just a data point in the overall picture.


Sorry if I was unclear. I was speaking to intent and design. While hormonal young dudes can get worked up over a LOT of different things, I don't think anyone can make a reasonable case that the art for the Lizardman or Rakshasa were intended to be titillating. There are no signs of such in the composition or design. The poses, angles and perspectives aren't designed to accentuate or show off secondary sex characteristics. They're not poses which imply anything erotic at all, in distinct contrast to DCS' borrowing a Playboy pose for the Succubus.


I'm confused about your point.

I think I (and several other people in the thread, but you may not be seeing all of it) have been clear that...

A) Sexy stuff isn't a problem on its own. The problem is when only one segment of the audience is catered to, and it contributes to an unwelcoming environment for other parts of the audience. This is related to discussions of representation, too.

B) The issue has gotten better over time. Roger E Moore, as previously cited, in his editorial tenure at Dragon, took the issue more seriously and was less dismissive than Kim Mohan. Who was better than Tim Kask*. Who in turn was less obnoxious than Gary was about women gamers and their concerns. "Cheesecake" art is less prominent and less monotonous than it once was. Bare chested crude drawing of an Amazon in 1974 OD&D or the naked woman hanging from a chain above a snake in 1975 Greyhawk, to Clyde Caldwell's artistically more sophisticated but still almost always pinup-style portrayals of women through the 80s up at least to 1989's White Magic cover art for Dragon #147 which he recruited a swimsuit model (IIRC) to pose for. But you can definitely see the art direction shift in 2E. And over the last three decades we've seen characters in official products displayed and shown on a much more egalitarian basis. There's still room for improvement, but things have changed over time.

*(who apologized, but made the mistake of running Lakofka's laughably terrible article about women adventurers which got them and Gary hanged in effigy in a famous piece of fan art).

"Only one segment" is the point and problem with all of these threads. Lets not pretend that all of this acknowledging the past is never going to & would never continue impacting the present or be used as evidence for why the present should do something specific where a deliberate & exclusive focus on one segment could matter when the player ratios are like 60/40★. So much of these threads focus on how it's a problem when only one segment is catered to while doing exactly that. You need only look at this tangent stemming from a misunderstanding and resulting disagreement of "always will be" being immediately dismissed unless the disagreement can show that the 1e mm specifically can provide an uncomfortable example of someone outside the one group getting focused on for how that exclusive focus results in exclusion through endlessly finding one more step of inclusively for a group that existed 50 years ago.

★Feel like I've seen numbers along those lines.

 

[MGibster]

The issue isn't sexiness, it is about objectification. I am troubled that a lot of folks don't seem clear on the distinction.

Sports Illustrated (I think) has, on more than one occasion, printed photos of male and female Olympic athletes from various sports clad in little more than their underware. Are they sexy? For the most part, yeah. They're young, physically fit people in the prime of their lives, so most of them look fabulous. But none of them are objectified. The women aren't posed in such a manner to emphasize their bust or their posteriors. Depending on which year the photos were taken, sometimes everyone is posed doing something related to their sport or just causally hanging out, but they're not presented as objects of desire.

 

[Jahydin]

@Snarf Zagyg
Thanks for taking the time to post your findings and thoughts on the matter.

Personally, where I struggle is getting bent out of shape over a group of guys making games for other guys writing things that just might offend a non-male someone.

A counter example (purely so I can understand where you are coming from): take the scrapbooking hobby. Currently I see the estimated male population to be 20%-30%. If 10 years from now someone comes along and is cool/creative/influential enough to get that percentage up, would you feel it appropriate to chastise the scrapbookers of the 2020s for not being inclusive enough? Would you critique the books/blogs for assuming a female audience and writing things that just might offend a non-female someone? Would it be fair to cite blogs like this one as proof of the rampant sexism?

For me, that would be a silly thing to do because the predominance of female scrapbookers probably came about by natural means and had nothing to do with misandry. And although assuming a female audience when writing is sexist, it's probably not what caused guys to not participate. Further, if I were in the hobby, I would just be happy more guys joined and would be more focused on what changed to cause the influx.

Maybe I'm completely mistaken? Maybe I'm taking the accusation of "sexist" to heavily (to me, it's a word synonymous with "hate")? Not being combative, just sharing my thoughts, would like to read yours. I don't think there's a better way to learn then just being honest.