Sexism and presumed sexism in RPGs

[DrunkonDuty]

Re. where is all the sexist fantasy art.

I just did a quick google image search for male and female images of elf, dwarf, gnome, halfling, half-orc and tiefling.

First impression: There were a lot more sexualised images of women. Boob windows in armour; bikinis (chainmail and otherwise) for wearing while exploring dangerous wilderness areas; that sort of thing.

Biggest offender (no surprise to anyone I think) were the tieflings. A lot of the female representations were just soft porn.

Next I'd say the elves had the second largest proportion of sexualised images of women BUT at the same time they definitely had the largest proportion of sexualised images of men. (So many posing pouches...)

The fewest sexualised images by category were the gnomes, both male and female depictions had very few sexualised images.

So, on the basis of my ever so rigourous research <sarcasm> I'd say that depictions of women in fantasy art are still pretty sexist.

Why should we, as gamers, care about this? Because we are the market for fantasy art. We should clean up our own act. Saying that it's not important because X is worse is not an argument against improving one's own behaviour. It's a cop out. For things to improve they need to improve EVERYWHERE. We are part of "everywhere," therefore we need to improve.

 

[TanithT]

while almost every woman picture in a game looks good, where you consider the males as "normal characters" how many of the men in the games have bellies that extend past their belt line, or love handles.

The majority of those men will be in ripped shape. Which is also not realistic.

Not so much seeing a lot of male depictions this way - for starters, they are much more statistically likely to be wearing clothes. Even when their bodies are shown, the message is not "look at this submissive, powerless, sexualized object to be gazed at and acted upon". The message is more like "Here is a big, strong, physically powerful man - he can get all the girls."

What you might be calling sexualization of the women in the pictures and "realistic" for the guys might simply be the artist portraying the prettiest people possible.

If more pretty, silk-draped elfboys in helpless or submissive positions showed up in the art, I'd be good with that argument. If we saw attractive, scantily clothed men with soft, 'come-hither - I am here for your pleasure" expressions, I'd certainly agree. But we don't. What we see are *powerful* male images that are attractive because of their strength and ability to act, not an invitation for them to be viewed, consumed or acted on.

Whereas, if you attack gaming art as your keystone of women's denigration, you're only affecting a niche hobby, and thus a minority of society that should change and improve how it represents and views women.

It goes kind of like this. As a nerd, one of the things I really value about nerd subculture is that it's a safe space not to be one of the cool kids, and not to be judged for crap like what kind of shoes you wear or how popular you can make yourself. It feels pretty horrific to me when I am treated as a "girl" or a "hot chick" in this kind of space, and judged - once again - for my conformity of lack thereof to prevalent social standards of what women are supposed to be.

The art is not the cause. It's more the symptom, and the atmosphere, and the message. I don't think porn or sexual imagery of any kind is bad or wrong at all, but I do think that the automatic, unthinking sexualization of all females to the point that it spills over onto real life gaming tables is a real problem.

 

[TanithT]

First impression: There were a lot more sexualised images of women. Boob windows in armour; bikinis (chainmail and otherwise) for wearing while exploring dangerous wilderness areas; that sort of thing.

Biggest offender (no surprise to anyone I think) were the tieflings. A lot of the female representations were just soft porn.

Honestly, I'm good with the porn. It harms no one. It's porn - it's sexual imagery, and there is no reason it should not exist.

It's the former that has, IMO, much more serious social implications for how people should view and treat real live gamer women. Automatic knee-jerk sexualization of *all* women under *all* circumstances, even utterly, obviously inappropriate and dangerous ones, sends a message. The message is basically that if she's female, she's only good for being sexual - heaven forbid she wear normal and appropriate armor to fight in, or dress intelligently for wilderness conditions. She's not allowed to do that, because she's female and therefore must be depicted and viewed primarily in terms of her sexuality.

Problematic, no?

It is a quandary, because I'm truly not in favor of censorship, and I think it is every woman's right to be as sexual and sexy as she wants to be without being shamed or penalized for it. Porn is good, mmmkay? It's not the problem.

The problem is not that men like to look at images of sexy women, or that some women find it empowering and enjoyable to be sexy. That's all good. The problem is when the equation of female = must be depicted and interacted with as a sex object becomes unthinking and automatic, because that's when it starts spilling over onto women who do not consent to it at that time or around that gaming table.

 

[Loonook]

This again?

Alright... I really, really wanted to include some articles on misogyny in Game of Thrones to frame the argument; however, there be some naughty words so Let Me Google That For You and read the top three articles produced. They're pretty representative of the ones below and will give you a good framing of how a popular fantasy mythos is viewed by those who consider themselves notable commenters on culture.

I will wait.

::Brews tea, sits::

Okay. You're back! Hope you were not overwhelmed. The discussions of sexuality! The evils of arranged marriage and lipstick feminism! Why do we put up with all of this!

GoT is probably our biggest wellspring for new nerds at this point in the decade. Lots of teens and adults may get their first brush with fantasy through this source. It passes the Bechdel test with multiple character interactions through the seasons, and covers the gamut of sexuality... When was the last series you have witnessed that included the GLBT community so thoroughly in fantasy or 'reality'?

But women use their sexuality. Or don't. And either one is bad. I mean if Brienne could just find a nice knight...

Yeah. We have a group of cultures that intermingle freely, with racism, classism, sexism, and sexual orientation biases throughout... It discusses deformity and the psyche (The Hound,

Spoiler

Jaime when he loses his hand

, expressions of strength when in a point of physical weakness (Bran Stark, Tyrion Lannister), the hazards of the sex trade, crime, and even a fat-positive asexual who has amassed power through turning perceived stereotypes against his enemies.

But this too is offensive? Yeah... I gave up on fantasy sexism a long time ago. Bring me a fat-positive hero...

Oh wait. You have two?

Sold. But there are going to be uncomfortable truths discussed about medieval societal norms... And thus we have sexism.

But nothing that was sexist about this show's depiction of men. Hrmm...

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[TanithT]

But nothing that was sexist about this show's depiction of men. Hrmm.

Disclaimer: I watched the first GoT and quit there, so I have no idea who these people are.

I see two kinds of depictions here. The male imagery shows power. Muscles, fitness, strength, fighting, armor and weapons are the descriptors that come immediately to mind. Their expressions are bold and challenging and serious. Clearly they are strong fighters, powerful people. They can act, they can lead, they can do. I would not say that they were being sexualized in a dehumanizing way at all. The message here is, "Look, this man is big and strong enough to get all the girls". He's not being shown as an object, he's being shown as a strong, fit, powerful and capable character.

The female imagery shows skimpy clothing and pretty much nothing else. I don't get any feeling of power or even much in the way of character or individuality here. It looks like a generic lingerie fantasy model lineup. Is anyone in this picture a powerful person, or a unique personality? Does she actually do anything other than look sexy in a bikini? I dunno, but if she does, I can't see it in this picture.

You'll have to show me some much prettier boys depicted in essentially submissive or powerless positions before you can even come close to complaining that men get sexualized in a hurtful, dehumanizing or degrading way as passive objects.

Oh wait, you probably can't find any. At least not in mainstream media.

 

[Loonook]

Disclaimer: I watched the first GoT and quit there, so I have no idea who these people are.

I see two kinds of depictions here. The male imagery shows power. Muscles, fitness, strength, fighting, armor and weapons are the descriptors that come immediately to mind. Their expressions are bold and challenging and serious. Clearly they are strong fighters, powerful people. They can act, they can lead, they can do. I would not say that they were being sexualized in a dehumanizing way at all. The message here is, "Look, this man is big and strong enough to get all the girls". He's not being shown as an object, he's being shown as a strong, fit, powerful and capable character.

The female imagery shows skimpy clothing and pretty much nothing else. I don't get any feeling of power or even much in the way of character or individuality here. It looks like a generic lingerie fantasy model lineup. Is anyone in this picture a powerful person, or a unique personality? Does she actually do anything other than look sexy in a bikini? I dunno, but if she does, I can't see it in this picture.

You'll have to show me some much prettier boys depicted in essentially submissive or powerless positions before you can even come close to complaining that men get sexualized in a hurtful, dehumanizing or degrading way as passive objects.

Oh wait, you probably can't find any. At least not in mainstream media.

You can find images from Spartacus... The issue is that I don't believe I can post pictures of sexual assault from either side of the sexual gap. Oh, did I mention that the men here are slaves forced to perform the bidding of a deviant master who requires them to kill each other and have sex with patrons/matrons of the House?

Oh wait, you didn't look up your sources. Plenty of images, just more erotically framed assaults than what I can find for GoT, and neither can be posted here.

The scene I chose to depict shows three individuals, a casual shot here. I could show you plenty of 'action' shots of Daenarys, but of course because she is the Mother of Dragons her most powerful scene shows her nude.

Spoiler

You know, from the walking through fire after killing the witch her murdered her unborn child and love, and rising from the flames bearing the dragons of legend.

It is willful ignorance of the two source materials, which I provided information on. Again, I guess it is completely acceptable for depictions that are considered harmful to women if there is a Y chromosome on the victim's side.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[TanithT]

Oh wait, you didn't look up your sources.

I didn't look up YOUR sources, you mean. GoT is not my fandom, and I'm not super interested in seeing any more of it. Tried it, wasn't my personal cup of tea, moved on. I'm just not much of a media fan myself, with respect for the folks who are.

I don't need to look very far to say that every time I open an RPG or comic book or video game, I can realistically expect the majority of the female images will be sexualized in a way that takes away their power rather than adds to it. This will simply not be true of the majority of male imagery. That's the plain fact of my experience, and I don't think you'll find many people disagreeing with it. Statistically it also bears out. Make of that what you like.

Yes, there are exceptions to the rule. Heck, there's even a Rule 34 - no matter what it is, there will be porn of it somewhere on the Internet. It doesn't change the day to day reality of my experience as a female gamer looking at typical female depictions in RPG source material and comics and video games.

It is willful ignorance of the two source materials, which I provided information on. Again, I guess it is completely acceptable for depictions that are considered harmful to women if there is a Y chromosome on the victim's side.

You picked the source materials and the images. I just described what I saw there, in those images alone. My description was of those specific depictions and nothing else.

If they are powerful characters, perhaps they should be depicted in a way that actually does show that in visual shorthand? Or would that be....I don't know.....just not as good for the ratings to show more female characters in a serious rather than sexy light?

 

[Umbran]

Whereas, if you attack gaming art as your keystone of women's denigration...

Hold on there just one second.

Who said it was their "keystone"? Did anyone here claim it was a keystone? I missed it if they did. If nobody did, then this part of the argument is in "logical fallacy" land, I'm sorry to say.

It is just *a* stone. The wall is pretty large. And not all (in fact, darned few) big solid walls are taken down by removal of a single key stone. You instead have to pick a way at a lot of not-particularly-key stones in order to have an effect.

 

[Loonook]

I didn't look up YOUR sources, you mean. GoT is not my fandom, and I'm not super interested in seeing any more of it. Tried it, wasn't my personal cup of tea, moved on. I'm just not much of a media fan myself, with respect for the folks who are.

I don't need to look very far to say that every time I open an RPG or comic book or video game, I can realistically expect the majority of the female images will be sexualized in a way that takes away their power rather than adds to it. This will simply not be true of the majority of male imagery. That's the plain fact of my experience, and I don't think you'll find many people disagreeing with it. Statistically it also bears out. Make of that what you like.

You picked the source materials and the images. I just described what I saw there, in those images alone. My description was of those specific depictions and nothing else.

If they are powerful characters, perhaps they should be depicted in a way that actually does show that in visual shorthand? Or would that be....I don't know.....just not as good for the ratings to show more female characters in a serious rather than sexy light?

I picked the source material to show your bias, and then proceeded to demonstrate it. In your mind the showing of skin in a female depiction is weakness. Now, of course, we can look at the sketches of the cultures I drew my pictures from:

Linked Image due to Thread Imbalance

For our top picture...

Of course, the sexualization is totally focused on the depictions of women. Damn my cursed eyes! Also, citing rule 34 is definitely out of line, as I'm just showing stock images/sketches from the source itself, depicting the imagery within the series. Gladiators? Pretty much without clothing for the entire series... One, a crippled named Ashur, is allowed to wear clothing, but he is 'outside' of the gladiatorial group, soft, and depicted as evil.

In fact, most 'evil' individuals in the series are flabby, underdeveloped, and seen as weak in their masculinity or horribly deformed... Whether this comes from their inability to please their partner, father children on their own, or their partners seeking out these pieces of meat in leather armor as they are weak.

Of course I do hate being seen as some piece of meat...

Sex sells, on both sides of the chromosome. Of course you could have a fandom of any number of sources... I wonder, what do you look towards for your sources of fantasy?

My real point is that, if you present me with your sources I would be more than happy to discuss them. I've read a good amount of fantasy from across the spectrum, and would love to discuss your fandom and see exactly where your ideas on fantasy come from and deconstruct. I presented multiple articles discussing the PoV you have taken, and argued against it.


And again: Show me a positive depiction of an unfit male-identified character who isn't evil or comic relief. Oh, he also has to be the hero, and not in the sense of 'magically fit' or 'gets exercise, becomes superman'.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[TanithT]

I picked the source material to show your bias, and then proceeded to demonstrate it. In your mind the showing of skin in a female depiction is weakness.

Never said any such thing. I said that a great many fantasy female character depictions show her as powerless or inappropriately sexualized or both. She is fairly likely to be wearing impractical sexy clothes or no clothes in situations where this is a *ridiculously stupid thing to do*. +5 chainmail bikini of orc arrow attraction FTW, and all that. Because gut wounds in combat are totally sexy.

I'm not sure how that equates to "Oh no, women can't show skin or it's bad/degrading/shameful". I don't have an issue with skin-showing under circumstances that make any damn sense, or in porn for consenting adults. I have a problem when it is the result of automatic, knee-jerk sexualizing of a female image just because it is female, in situations where it would make a hell of a lot more sense for her to be wearing normal clothes or actual armor. Not Fredrick's of Waterdeep lingerie armor, which is freaking insane. Because, clearly looking hot and defending your boobies must be more important than, I don't know, little things like not sustaining fatal gut wounds or getting your legs chopped off.

My real point is that, if you present me with your sources I would be more than happy to discuss them.

If you seriously want to do so, pick any RPG sourcebook that includes depictions of both males and females of assorted PC and monster races. Categorize the images based on how many could be considered sexualized, how many depict a sexualized character as a passive or powerless object, and how many are inappropriately sexualized (eg, someone who is fighting or wilderness scouting in skimpy clothing).

And again: Show me a positive depiction of an unfit male-identified character who isn't evil or comic relief. Oh, he also has to be the hero, and not in the sense of 'magically fit' or 'gets exercise, becomes superman'.

Elric of Melnibone, though technically he does become magically fit after he becomes the wielder of the Black Sword, albeit at the agonizing price of consuming his loved ones' blood and souls. Thomas Covenant, the leper. Bilbo and Frodo Baggins, who are three feet tall and have hairy toes. Need more examples?