Great post on a lot of things worthy of attention that keep getting ignored & glossed over through all the food fights on the topic. Going to snip down the OP and add an extra bit of peer reviewed(?) complicated nuance to the quoted bit of history that wasn't touched on in the OP.
So I gave this a like when I read it- not because I was endorsing everything in it (I am a little confused by the anecdote at the end and I was not entirely sure I was comfortable with all of the inferences of the overall gist) but because it gets into an issue - the one in the spoilers, that I wanted to explore further. But, you know, I've been out and haven't had the chance to get back to this. Until now.
Looks around, sees that people are talking about ... the art again. Okay!
I think that the linked-to research in the spoilers touches upon ... yes, a complicated and nuanced issue. I can't fully do it justice in a reply, but I will hit on a few of the different issues that it raises-
Necessary disclaimer- because I am trying to be brief about a complicated and nuanced issue, I am necessarily making generalizations. I do not speak for everyone, nor could I, and generalizations can't fully capture nuance, which is why this is tricky to discuss, because I trying to make a point about a nuanced issue quickly using generalizations. If I misspeak, feel free to correct me but please try to read the following with generosity.
1. Don't Hate the Player, Hate the Game. In other words, it's possible to recognize and dislike a structural issue, but still play by society's rules.
Let me start with a simple analogy- a lot of people hate massive societal inequality. They can recognize it. They can understand the problems it causes. And yet, the vast majority of people, if given the opportunity to get all the money? They will take it. That doesn't make most people hypocrites; it makes them human. It's the reason we see this cartoon-
(Artist: Matt Bors. Please support artists. His
store.)
The same principle applies in so many places. For example, we can understand and recognize that society has unrealistic and damaging structural issues when it comes to,
inter alia, the portrayal of women. We should be able to critique that and demand change. In fact, we can
see that change happening. I know that the diversity of different body types (in all manners from sizes to races to whatever) portrayed in advertising and media is vastly different now than it was just 20 years ago. This might seem bizarre, but there was a time when casting a larger lead actress (Camryn Manheim) in a prime time show (
The Practice) was major news, because before that, it was almost never done.
And yet, those same structural pressures exist and influence us- we internalize them. It is hardly surprising that women can recognize and hate those unrealistic pressures, and yet ... also wish that they embodied what society is telling them is the ideal. In other words, like that research in the spoilers- a woman can both hate that society objectifies women's bodies, and also wish that she was that idealized version of "woman" that society wants.
Or, as that study seems to indicate*, it is entirely believable that a woman might hate that the overwhelming portrayal of women (as miniatures, as avatars in videogames) is unrealistic and sexualized, yet still choose a sexualized and unrealistic avatar because ... don't hate the player, hate the game.
*Necessary caveat- obviously, I am loathe to credit a single study. And there is a massive replication problem that has been identified in the social sciences. I am making some general points here that were kicked off by that post, but please- the next time you see some social science study that is "just so," take it with a giant boulder of salt.
2. Context always matters.
This is my least favorite topic, so I will be brief. Words mean different things, at different times, to different people. There is a long history of marginalized groups appropriating slurs to use with each other as a means of empowerment. But that doesn't mean that the word isn't a slur when used against them. This is the hoary, "If that group uses the "n" word and that group uses the "f" word and etc. etc., Y KANT I?" Well, if you are using it in the proper context, sure! But otherwise, ya might wanna roll that window up.
Moving this back to the instant issue (and this was also a partial response to the poster who I just saw is no longer here)- let's say you are a straight guy. And you appreciate the sexy. There is
nothing wrong with that! Enjoy all the sexy that you want! Heck, given the structure of society, you are practically being force-fed the sexy! But still ... I will keep saying that this is fine (IMO). If that 1e succubus brings the sexy back for you, Justin, then go grab yourself a vintage 1e Monster Manual and do what you need to. I won't kink shame.
But.... imagine a slightly different context. Say a workplace that was all guys. And all the guys like sexy. So they all have pinups, and vintage Pirelli Calendars, and random pron magazines (urls?) around the office. And they regularly joke about ... well, you know. Not to mention that every Friday lunch is at the local ... dancing establishment. Then a woman is hired. And ... the men don't change a thing, because, hey, what's wrong with the sexy, amirite? Do you think that she would feel comfortable working there?
You might think that this is ridiculous.
But it isn't. I can assure you that this has happened ... EXACTLY THIS ... and I know this because I can cite the cases. And it continues to happen. Context matters!
When I look at early D&D, I try to be balanced. I think it's important to acknowledge that early D&D
improved on the prior wargaming community, but that it also
contained elements that were structural and were unwelcoming. IMO, it's fine to recognize both!
3. Finally, the real issue is about choice. And fantasy is not reality.
I would end with this- regardless of the validity of the study, the issue (in terms of art, miniatures, avatars, etc.) is really that all gamers want the ability to
choose for representation. People* want to be able to choose something other than the barely-dressed sexy female fighter. Why not an armor-clad buttkicker like Brienne of Tarth? It's important not just because, duh, representation and seeing yourself reflected out there matters, but also because different people have different wants, and we want to enable choices.
And that includes the choice, if they want, to play as a super sexy character. Fantasy is not reality. Put choices out there, let people choose, let people roleplay, and let people explore what they want and need. It's all good.
Except bards, of course. Choices is good, so long as that choice is not a bard.
*I am using people because as we all know, these choices are made by him, her, and them.
