D&D 4E Women in 4E

[Lonely Tylenol]

Do you hear that, people?

Stop waxing your assertions.

Ciao, -- N

Waxing? Ouch. I'd rather just shave my assertions, thank you very much.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's funny; all this banter about how wrong the armor is, when that shield is just as useless. But of course people aren't really arguing about the realism of the armor anyway; it's merely window-dressing to argue puritanical attitudes towards the subtext of female sexuality.

So when my wife told me that she thinks the armour on that PHB cover looked "silly" and was "obviously drawn by a man", she was a poor, innocent victim of "puritanical attitudes towards female sexuality".

Knowing her, I have to say, I find that unlikely in the extreme.

What's a lot more likely is, aging men and young nerds who enjoy seeing women in sexualized clothing are upset when, god forbid, the women wear sensible clothing/armour, and anyone supports their right to wear sensible clothing/armour, rather than being dressed entirely for male benefit. Well boo-hoo for you 1970s rejects. I'm sorry that you think Boris Vajello is the peak of awesome, and that not many other people do, but the world has changed since then, and women are expected to be as capable and sensible as men.

The reason people aren't talking about the shield is obvious. It'd be stupid regardless of gender. If you think that's an excellent excuse to promote sexism, you are well and truly out of touch with reality.

 

[Cadfan]

What's a lot more likely is, aging men and young nerds who enjoy seeing women in sexualized clothing are upset when, god forbid, the women wear sensible clothing/armour, and anyone supports their right to wear sensible clothing/armour, rather than being dressed entirely for male benefit. Well boo-hoo for you 1970s rejects. I'm sorry that you think Boris Vajello is the peak of awesome, and that not many other people do, but the world has changed since then, and women are expected to be as capable and sensible as men.

Amen.

Its the 21st century. Artwork of female characters needs to be made for female players. More than that even- it needs to be part of the overall branding of D&D. The game can be branded as a past time for horny, pimply misanthropes, or can be branded as something anyone with an imagination can enjoy. I hope for the latter.

And for the record, no amount of philosophizing on the cultural origins of the sexualization of nudity will make peek-a-booby armor non sexual. Its gratuitous nature undermines your premise.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

What's a lot more likely is, aging men and young nerds who enjoy seeing women in sexualized clothing are upset when, god forbid, the women wear sensible clothing/armour, and anyone supports their right to wear sensible clothing/armour, rather than being dressed entirely for male benefit. Well boo-hoo for you 1970s rejects. I'm sorry that you think Boris Vajello is the peak of awesome, and that not many other people do, but the world has changed since then, and women are expected to be as capable and sensible as men.

Hey, good job attributing motivations to the other posters, and insulting them while you're at it. I'm sure that you're 100% right and that everyone who disagrees with you is an unwashed closet pervert who is even now getting sweaty reminiscing about Carrie Fisher in that bronze getup. Or maybe you're just violating the board rules.

For the record, my position is that I don't really care one way or the other, but I do think that the premise of this thread equates to making a mountain out of a molehill. Once the PHB comes with a centrefold, then perhaps there's a problem. The vast majority of D&D art is pretty asexual. Paizo had a habit of making somewhat sexy covers a few times a year (no doubt due to the way that automatically draws your eye to the magazine on the rack and the correlation between that effect and the bottom line), but they also said that they were trying to balance that out by buying art of attractive males too. The PHB is a study in ascetic-like restraint as far as sexing up the art goes, and the rest of the WotC supplements aren't too far off from that.

Cosmopolitan--undeniably a magazine aimed directly at women--has probably about three or four orders of magnitude more sexed-up naked flesh per page than your average D&D book. Those Paizo covers can't touch Cosmo's covers. Hell, if showing a bunch of woman-flesh sells magazines to women, maybe the way they'll get more women into D&D involves sticking a few anorexic tarts here and there throughout the books.

 

[Rechan]

Source for chair skirt hypothesis?

First thing I found on Google:

Robert Thompson, professor of pop culture and television at Syracuse University in New York.

"We have been a culture that has been really kind of uptight," Thompson says. "We are both a society that likes to talk about and fill our entertainment with sexuality, and at the same time, we find it very embarrassing.

"And that goes back to the beginning. The New England notion of sexuality was one that was very under-the-covers."

In the Victorian era, he notes, the shyness continued: "We put skirts on furniture for fear that chair legs would remind someone of a real leg and get them all riled up."

 

[Rechan]

However, even if I concede that, your nitpick sidesteps the actual point, which is, where do you get the idea this was intended to titillate?

As I said earlier:
I'm aware that the pictures aren't attractive. But it's an example of a double standard. Even in a picture not attempting to be eye candy, they're still showing comparatively more skin. It illustrates a mindset.

A b-cup? Are you kidding me? Have you ever actually looked at bras of different sizes?

Yes?

So, one side assumes one thing, the other side assumes another thing, and we have no reason to side with either side. You know what would be great? If someone had something other than bald assertion to base their arguments on.

I'm willing to listen if you have one?

 

[Rechan]

Cosmopolitan--undeniably a magazine aimed directly at women--has probably about three or four orders of magnitude more sexed-up naked flesh per page than your average D&D book. Those Paizo covers can't touch Cosmo's covers. Hell, if showing a bunch of woman-flesh sells magazines to women, maybe the way they'll get more women into D&D involves sticking a few anorexic tarts here and there throughout the books.

The reason they do that is very simple: Making women feel like crap.

Cosmo slaps a super thin airbrushed model on the front cover. Women, looking at the cover and thinking "Oh god I'll never look like her", feel ugly and fat. Then they notice the bold letters that say "FEEL LIKE A BLOATED COW? Six tips on how to lose eighty billion pounds!"

 

[Mad Mac]

The reason they do that is very simple: Making women feel like crap.

I've never bought into that theory. For one thing, it doesn't explain why women spend so much time looking at pictures of pretty women. "These pictures make me feel like crap! Must keep flipping through magazine and looking at said pictures for several minutes and show it to all my female friends so we can critique everything from her hair to how well her shoes match that dress! Feeling like crap is my favorite hobby!"

Secondly, the specific example is Cosmo. Not a lot of diet plans in that mag, as I recall. Instead Cosmo has the magical power to come up with 10 all-new "sex-secrets that will blow his mind" every single week. Those writers are geniuses, I tell you, geniuses.

Sigh...I spend way too much time around women.

For the record, my position is that I don't really care one way or the other, but I do think that the premise of this thread equates to making a mountain out of a molehill. Once the PHB comes with a centrefold, then perhaps there's a problem. The vast majority of D&D art is pretty asexual. Paizo had a habit of making somewhat sexy covers a few times a year (no doubt due to the way that automatically draws your eye to the magazine on the rack and the correlation between that effect and the bottom line), but they also said that they were trying to balance that out by buying art of attractive males too. The PHB is a study in ascetic-like restraint as far as sexing up the art goes, and the rest of the WotC supplements aren't too far off from that.

QFT. The main thing that boggles my mind is that all this ranting is aimed at Wotc Art of all things, which is studiously unsexualized 80% of the time, to the point that their own board traffic tend to get all excited on the rare occasion a book gets released with a depection of a vaugely attractive female, because it just doesn't happen that much.

 

[Klaus]

Klaus, I'd say she's a b-cup, rather than top heavy.

You got anything with a view from behind?

The reduced resolution can be tricky, but keep in mind that the armor is tying up her breasts, not supporting them like a bra. It's working more like a corset.

And before anyone cries "impractical", I remind you that the picture is called "Druid Amazon". So she has access to barkskin, which can make her bare flesh stronger than leather armor (at least).

See? Rules working in our favor!

 

[Sundragon2012]

The reduced resolution can be tricky, but keep in mind that the armor is tying up her breasts, not supporting them like a bra. It's working more like a corset.

And before anyone cries "impractical", I remind you that the picture is called "Druid Amazon". So she has access to barkskin, which can make her bare flesh stronger than leather armor (at least).

See? Rules working in our favor!

Ignore any and all naysayers....she looks good. Also, her outfit is no less practical than what indiginous peoples all over the world wear whether during everyday activities or in battle....little or nothing at all in many cases. There are peoples alive even now who in comparison to them, she's overdressed.


Sundragon