In the latest issue of Pelgrane Press’ online magazine, See Page XX, Anna Kreider analyzes the art of both tabletop and electronic games, comparing their depictions of male and female figures, and concludes that game art is sexist. Unfortunately, I’m not at all surprised at the results.
I hate to be negative but did anyone really need to study this? Hasn’t the hobby been discussing this for decades?
Man, that article is a load of crap. “Boo-hoo, they are showing cleavage.” If you can’t handle it go make your own PG game that has everyone fully clothed at all times.
“Man, that article is a load of crap.”
She isn’t wrong. And her article is a lot more than that. Did you actually read it? DId you explore the methodology she used?
Do you have something more useful to offer than calling it “crap”?
I initially though that her point was blindingly obvious but your response has me rethinking that.
I don’t agree with Gordon’s sentiments, but I also think the article is quite poor, for all of its research.
She takes an implicit definition of sexist as a) less of the sex depicted, regardless of setting, and b) more of the sex in a state of undress or a subjective notion of sexual suggestiveness. I think that, while there is some argument to be made for these criteria, she doesn’t make them and I’m not convinced.
If nearly no women appeared in any setting, or nearly all women and no men were depicted solely as sexual objects, then I could see it. But that’s not what she found. Not even close.
That more men than women appear as adventurers or trades in a historical setting is not sexist. There were no women in the armies or clergy back then; in fact, a far greater percentage of the depicted figures are women than you would reasonably expect to find, and that is done entirely to appeal to modern women gamers, which is still (I think) less of a percentage than men gamers. (although you could argue a chicken and egg problem here).
And sexual suggestiveness or state of undress isn’t the definition of sexism: it’s objectification. Men will objectify a woman in a state of undress, while women might be turned off by too much nakedness and instead objectify a man in a state of total dress if the man’s depiction is meant solely to be candy. It might be subtly defined muscle tone, or power, or wealth, or any of a number of other factors that are specifically appealing to women.
The point is that the criteria should be “presented in an objectified manner”, not sexually suggestive, which is not alone inherently sexist.
IMHO, the research was poorly defined, subjective, and not at all helpful.
“If nearly no women appeared in any setting, or nearly all women and no men were depicted solely as sexual objects, then I could see it. But that’s not what she found.”
How is that a valid definition of sexist?
Maybe it was the word “sexist” that triggered me thinking in these terms but…is it me, or is the Pelgrane Press logo phallic?
So, the web site’s logo is supposed to be ironic?