Selling games by selling bodies
Edit to add: Welcome, readers from the Paizo boards. Flame-free comments are welcome. Some important points to keep in mind to avoid saying clueless things: I understand that you’re protective of your iconics, but they’re fair game for social criticism. Please don’t confuse “exploitive” with “offensive”—they’re different words. Having a female friend/being a woman who doesn’t see any problem doesn’t necessarily mean there’s no problem, just that that woman doesn’t think there’s one. There’s a difference between criticising an example of a cultural phenomenon and “speaking for all women”—I’m doing the first, not the latter. A female CEO doesn’t give a free pass on exploitation or sexism: see Jenna Jameson or Sarah Palin. For context you might want to read my first post on this blog, White privilege in fantasy fiction and gaming, and consider whether the comment you have in mind will get any traction here.
I made an account at Paizo’s online store when I wanted to take a look at their Pathfinder RPG beta, so I’m on their mailing list. I got a promotional email from Paizo yesterday that I was compelled to answer.
Some of you might have gotten the email I’m talking about. It’s a “Season’s greetings, have a discount coupon” sort of promo email. It’s one of those emails that’s nearly all image. Since my mail reader doesn’t load external images until I say it should (for security reasons), it initially just looked like:
Dear D7: [have a big-ass image]
Minus the editorialised replacement text, of course.
The image is of a big-breasted, skimpily-dressed, White woman fondling an enormous candy-cane with a come-hither look, sitting inside a wreath against a snowy background. (She must be cold. Or maybe she just has DR/fire.) The wreath is topped by “Season’s Greetings”, and the words “from your friends at Paizo” sit just beneath her coyly-crossed feet and elaborately-impractical costume. Curiously, her ears are hidden so she’s of indeterminate species. Maybe they didn’t want to be on the wrong side of that all-important elf fetish divide.
Yes, I’m being slightly caustic. Here’s the non-caustic email I sent them in reply:
Thank you for the discount coupon and well-wishing. However, I have to take exception to the image. I imagine many of your customers appreciate being shown random cheesecake, but it’s not terribly professional or respectful to your female customers. I do hope you had something less exploitive of women for your female customers. Even if so (and especially if not!) this is a good time to stop and consider how this kind of careless skin-selling from a major publisher sets back gamers’ attempts to make roleplaying less of a horny-boys’ club. FYI, the group I run games for is more than half women.
If none of that made any sense, you’re welcome to ask what I’m on about. Part of the problem is that this kind of image is considered normal in the industry, so people don’t have much of a handle on what might be problematic about it.
Sincerely,
d7
I’m curious what their reply, if any, will be. Paizo is known for this kind of cheesecake and fanservice, and I can only imagine the company culture that must hold sway when that’s their public face. I’m not expecting much. If only they’d realise (and care) how hostile to women gamers this kind of thing is.
Related posts:
Tags: exploitation of women, gender, holiday, industry, marketing, Paizo, race, women in gaming
Well said. In all of my time observing your fascinating culture, I have never come to understand how it is the female half of its population is treated not as humans, but as objects. It seems strange indeed – irrational and counterproductive.
Your friend,
Ficus Softball Palin MCXXVI
(I love you.
-your wife)
I’m not on the Paizo email list, so I haven’t had occasion to see this piece of… marketing. But as a female gamer trying to get the industry to cut the cheesecake, I applaud your efforts and look forward to hearing the results. If at any point there’s some part of this I can contribute to, let me know?
Go get ‘em!
Ravyn’s last blog post: Dangerous Demeanors
*applauds*
I really should think about this stuff more. Most of the time I just roll my eyes and ignore it, when I know I should at least become disgruntled. It would be nice to try and curve the industry away from the objectification that has become so mainstream.
A little perspective and background might help to stop the shrill cries of foul.
Objectifying woman for profit is a bad thing. And if I believe that was the point, even for a second, I would be right there in backing what your point of view.
The ‘ big-breasted, skimpily-dressed, White woman fondling an enormous candy-cane’ has a name, it is Seoni.
Seoni is on the paizo iconics, a set of characters designed to showcase different aspects of the pathfinder campaign setting. She is a fan favourite, much loved by many of Pathfinders fans.
Now to understand why I don’t think that this was a soulless case of commercial exploitation of the female form, I would like to point to Paizo’s track record with it’s iconics. Rare is the leading produce in roleplaying which is promoted by such a diverse and inclusive and respectful set of iconic character. I cannot think of another company, which has a product with a black woman in heavy plate, carrying a sword and board with not an inch of skin on view save her face. I cannot think of another company who’s main product line has a perfectly normal, slightly grumpy middle ages gay wizard as its poster boy. Or for that matter an ‘Arabic’ priestess in respectful clothing and armour. Ethic and cultural groups other than white European, varying body types, powerful and respectful roles for woman. Sensible treatment of sexuality. All this and more can be found in the paizo iconics.
Even Seoni, doesn’t fit quite into your complaint. She isn’t ‘white’, she is from a distinctly none anglo-saxon culture and ethnicity. Although I will be the first to admit it would be hard to tell, if you had only ever seen this picture of her.
So, why was it that Seoni appeared on what is to all intents and purposes a piece of fan service? Well the answer is right there. Fan service. A Christmas Seoni has been on the books as a piece of fan art, bounced around for week. As i have said, she is a solid favourite of the community. Unlike may companies, Paizo is active on its message boards. At least one member of staff saw we wanted it and so, in a customary fashion we got it.
Its cute, it is a little bit ironic and it is a sign that unlike so many companies, paizo actually listens to its fans. The fact it worked nicely as a marketing tool, that’s just good business sense. Some of seoni’s fan art, including that by woman is far bawdier.
I consider my self a feminist. Frankly we have bigger fish to fry than a tongue in cheek image meant to make seoni’s fans smile. How about rather than having a go at a company who have actually done a great deal to reverse some of the negative trends in D’n'D and actively moved to increase diversity in its productsm, we concentrate on improving pay equality, putting an end to sex trafficking and stopping female genital mutilation.
YOU BEST BE TROLLING.
I’m trying to understand where you are getting this line: “Paizo is known for this kind of cheesecake and fanservice” If you look at the covers of their products only 2 are of scantily clad women, one of which is a Succubus.
The artist polled the community on what type of holiday picture they wanted him to draw, and this got 4 votes for every one that the other 6 suggestions combined got, so he went with the vast majority of the community..
I havn’t seen the art yet (my email got lost somewhere) But intend to see it when it is posted on the store blog tonight. So I can’t really comment on the art itself yet
You’re reading way too much into it. I don’t see any sort of “come hither look” there in the slightest. She’s smiling, and not provocatively, that’s all. And she’s dressed the same way she’s usually depicted, just with Santa style fur fringe and such, and given the character’s class and origin, it makes sense.
You’re looking too hard to find something that isn’t there, and it’s wierd for a guy to be generalizing about what all women should want or be offended by. You’re offended, that’s all I can take away from this. Some moralizing busybodies see nudity in abstract art too, but it doesn’t mean that it’s there to find.
By the by, I received the e-mail and found it to be much more innocent than you described. She is not fondling the candy cane, she does not have a come-hither look.
AND she is human. She is Seoni, one of their Iconics, in this case a Varisian Sorcerer. I believe she was second on that list.
Also reading on, I feel you may be misinformed about Paizo’s ‘fanservice’ atmosphere. I play 4e, not PFRPG currently, and I still post at Paizo. The reason being is because there is a fairly high level of discourse, an atmosphere that fosters discussion about our hobby, and a communicative staff that lends its insight when available.
Also, a fine number of women posters (more than I’ve seen elsewhere) are diehard Paizo fans.
I do not mean to begrudge your opinion, but it is my feeling that you may be taking one nice gesture (a Holiday Card) and spinning it with some preconceived notions based on a general principle you believe holds true.
Before belittling a company in a public forum, please, please, dig a little deeper and see if your opinion still stands — if it does, then great, for then it becomes an informed opinion.
Season Greetings,
The Last Rogue.
Oddly enuff the 7 female gamers I know liked the pic. The female art directer and CEO at paizo seemed to like the pic. The female gamers on paizo’s boards seem to like the pic.
If ya didn’t like it cool, but don’t take offance for others as a whole since they do not seem to be bothered by it.
Oh and last year we got niffty goblins in a tree
Huh. I must be gaming with the wrong people.
I would say roughly a quarter of the players in my last few games both as a GM and a Player have been women. In some cases closer to half.
Of those I can think of maybe… three individuals who might have taken offense to the image. I’m certainly not offended. I’m offended by Paizo’s shipping rates. I see nothing wrong with a little good girl pin up art. I find the horny boys club generalization to be far more offensive and damning.
And if you want to talk about objecification, What about the men of fantasy? The knife cuts both ways.
I need to get some distance between this post and myself; need to calm to the point of rational thought again, but my first impression of your post, attitude and letter is that you are arguing from a position of collosal ignorance. Sorry.
I hope you post their reply (if you haven’t already).
I’m a female gamer. I appreciate that the RPG industry is trying to appeal to a more diverse demographic, and I do think it’s good to remind them of things like that.
At the same time, I would have appreciated that email. Why? Because I don’t feel personally diminished by cheesecake, and I happen to be gay. So for me, pictures of scantily clad women are where it’s at.
I would be offended if they’d sent a seperate “beefcake” email to females on their mailing list. Who wants to see that? Probably straight girls, whom I no more speak for than male gamers speak for me.
I guess what I’m saying is, it’s great that you’re reminding Paizo to put more thought into how they represent women in PR. But don’t think we women are so fragile that we just can’t deal with designers or gamers objectifying us.
Quick someone tell the female CEO of Paizo that her underlings are sending out images.
Wait, her and the female art director already knew?
Move along, nothing to see here.
I’ve added some landing text and basic rebuttals to the top of the post, since this has been linked from the Paizo forums. So far the vast majority of comments have been good. Only two were trolls or flames. I knew this post wouldn’t be popular, so I’m rather pleased at the quality of comments so far.
@Anon: I’ve seen Seoni, and at first guessed it was her. I changed my mind when I remembered that Seoni wasn’t day-glo White like this character. Maybe Paizo’s art director isn’t as comfortable with non-White characters as you think. Maybe it’s a colour-balance problem. In any case, the rest of your defense amounts to excusing one case of sexism because the company is otherwise really good on diversity, and the fans wanted it anyway. Really, that just makes this that much more of a bad choice. Sexism doesn’t work on a karma system where you’re allowed to get free passes by being good the rest of the time. Second, being fan service doesn’t make it any less exploitive. Actually, it makes it obvious that that’s exactly what it is: the female form put to service the viewer. Third, bigger fish to fry doesn’t mean the small things deserve no criticism. I’ll let the big fish fry the other big fish. This here is a small blog in the small pond of roleplaying commentary. Finally, being feminist doesn’t mean we’re somehow immune to patriarchal influence. It just means we’ve made a commitment to recognising and resisting it where we can.
@HAHAHA: Thanks for bringing some contrast to these comments, highlighting just how reasonable everyone has been. You’ve used up the one troll slot, though, so the rest of the trolls can blame you for their deleted comments.
@cpt_kirstov: You seem to be alone in believing there’s no fanservice here. See the rest of the comments.
@Bemused: Perhaps “sultry” would be an acceptable synonym. A woman doesn’t have to be drawn provocatively—leering or licking her lips—in order to be inviting an objectifying gaze. That’s she’s dressed similarly to how Seoni is usually depicted misses the point. If I’m saying that this depiction of a women is problematic, do you somehow suppose that I don’t think Seoni’s usual outfit isn’t too? I’m not generalising about what all women are or should be offended by. I don’t think Anne Coulter would think there’s any problem with the image. However, it still reflects the cultural attitude that women’s bodies are for other people’s pleasure. Yes, that’s hard to see for most people, but it wouldn’t be a problem if it was easy to see.
@Rogue: I’ll take your word that this is supposed to be Seoni. This woman only looks like she’s dressing up like her, though, given that her facial features and skin colour don’t match. Sure, sometimes a giant candy cane that a half-naked woman has her fingers gently wound around is just a giant candy cane, but sometimes it’s a big ol’ Freudian phallic symbol. That’s always a judgement call, but I think I’m safe in judging her relation to it to be deliberately suggestive by the “look, boobs!” fanservice context.
As for public forums and nice gestures, none of that really matters. Given that I hold the belief, based on a good solid theoretical grounding in power and oppression, that certain things can’t be excused, I’m not going to assume that if only I could dig deeply enough I’d find something that excused the inexcusable. Paizo’s intentions don’t change the fact that they’re perpetuating a cultural attitude that’s harmful.
@seekerofshadowlight: Having certain genitals doesn’t mean that someone is infallible about the treatment of other people who have the same genitals. Specific women participate in the oppression of the class of women all the time. See Anne Coulter or Michelle Malkin. Having read the thread, I’d be surprised if female gamers who didn’t like the image would be comfortable speaking up about that in significant numbers. That kind of selective data results in what’s called “manufactured consent”.
@Dr Checkmate: I would appreciate hearing your thoughts when you come back to this. On the subject of women who do or don’t object to these kinds of images: Most women who are bothered by the way women are portrayed in roleplaying games naturally never became gamers. Of those that become gamers, some are just going to not have a problem with it. Of the rest, many are going to suck it up because they love gaming and don’t want to deal with the sexism of everyday life in their escapist hobby. And yeah, the objectification of muscle-men in fantasy is problematic too, but not to the same degree. Because our culture gives the balance of power to men, the objectification of men just doesn’t have the same meaning as the objectification of women. If the situation were reversed, this image wouldn’t be problematic, but things are only problematic or not because of the cultural dynamics that they hook into.
@Swordgleam: Thanks for pointing this out. This is where my email fell down, in making heteronormative assumptions about sending something different to female customers. I should have just left that part out, but I decided that leveraging their heteronormative assumptions (and cheesecake as a promo is heteronormative) would be more effective. That was a poor choice on my part since it compromised my principles. So, thanks for making me think about that harder. Really, though, they shouldn’t be sending either cheesecake or beefcake to their customers. Using objectified bodies to promote product is exploitive.
@The Livewire: I think I’ve covered this enough in other replies. Thanks for playing.
So, you are using this image as a specific example of a general issue with their portrayal of their iconic female characters? I’m honestly asking…
When I look at the image my first thought was “Huh, that’s not their main art people doing that… it’s not as good as some of their other artwork.” When I try to see your point I… really have to stretch to get it. I’ll grant the skimpiness of the outfit, but she’s not gleaming white (At least not on my screen). And as for the candy cane… even with the notion that it’s suggestive in my mind I don’t see it. She’s not holding it to her lips, she’s not holding it to her body, it’s not between her legs… she’s just sorta holding it.
I wouldn’t say there isn’t an issue in a general sense… but in this instance I just think, it’s a weak argument… *shrug*
justaguy’s last blog post: Curb stomping quaists for fun and profit
Not exactly that, no. It doesn’t have anything to do with her being an iconic character. I’ll grant you that the candy cane thing is a judgement call, and “day-glo” is definitely hyperbole. She’s Whiter than she ought to be, but it’s not the main point.
The point is that the roleplaying game industry has long had a problem with assuming that their customers are male, and that those male customers should have (semi-)naked women in their game books. Putting women’s bodies on display for the benefit of men takes something huge away from women in general (the freedom to not be defined by or reduce to their bodies) in trade for something very small for men (the momentary pleasure of the viewing). Yes, gay women complicate that picture, but it still works out as a net loss for women in general (“we’re going to objectify your gender for our pleasure, but you can at least get some visual pleasure out of being objectified in the ways that we enjoy!”)
So, being admitted fanservice, this is a pretty blatant example of a big industry player saying that it’s okay to objectify women. Apart from how it reinforces that wider cultural idea, it also reinforces the idea that gaming is a boys’ club—girls are allowed, but they have to be complicit with reducing women to things used for visual stimulation.
There are certainly situations where skin is fine. We’re adults after all, and none of us want sterilised games that only deal with G-rated issues. A mass mailing doesn’t fall under that kind of exception, though.
Hi, I’m the self-important jerk, Tarren Dei.
The criticisms I made of your blogpost over on the Paizo ‘Seoni as Santa’ thread were that you were speaking of women gamers as a group and you were speaking for women gamers.
Stuart Hall argues that when people racialized as black participates in identity politics by speaking of ‘the black experience’ they are walking on thin ice, politically. Judith Butler argues that when ‘woman’ participates in identity politics by speaking of ‘women’s experience’ they are walking on thin ice, politically. Both are in danger of giving strength to the apparent reality of racializing and sexist discourses by speaking from the position of the construct of those discourses. When a ‘white man’ wishes to participate in identity politics by speaking of the opinions or experiences of othered people, he’d better use quotes. Otherwise, he runs the risk of grouping a large number of people with very different opinions together as if they all shared one view — his.
You’ve wrote “If only they’d realise (and care) how hostile to women gamers this kind of thing is.” Which women gamers found this hostile? You also wrote: “I do hope you had something less exploitive of women for your female customers.” Politically, you’ve taken a giant step in the wrong direction. You’re actually suggesting women gamers should not be shown certain images? Again, I ask if you were contacted by a group of women gamers who found this exploitative?
My issue is not with your perception of the holiday card — I am not a drug, I am not here to alter your perceptions.
However, I do take umbrage with the tone you use to describe Paizo. I’d say that the mailing of this card, regardless of how you interpret it, is not something from which final conclusions can be made about a company nor how it runs its business.
All I am going to say is when you’re convinced there’s a fire beforehand, a candle will look like one to you.
Its true, showing female skin in artwork attracts people but its not just males that it attracts. I’ve seen many female gamers find such artwork nice, while others loved it.
Look at it this way. The elf rogue of pathfinder is very humble, dressed from toes to neck with standard rogue equipment.
The sorceress, as you’ll see many women in reality, is a seductive outlook character.
If your question is ‘why are there no scantily dressed men in artworks’, I’d have to tell you to look again with a neutral perspective. I’m sure you’ll find there’s a fair share of half-naked men in the books too, its just that this does not seem to offend anyone so it goes unnoticed. When a woman is depicted half-naked however, to some people this is immediately sexist and/or offensive.
I’d say the social phaenomenon here is that in this day and age people still take offense from this type of artwork, and that sexism is invoked on such matters when there really are far worse examples of it.
My suggestion is instead of wasting your breath on a subject like RPG’s, that has always involved such artwork and such concepts, on both sexes (see succubus/incubus), use your time to talk about real problems, like for instance the fact that in certain countries women have their genitals mutilated at birth because its the way their religion works.
If you don’t like it, don’t buy their products. I don’t like cigarettes, so I don’t buy them. I don’t like Playboy, so I don’t buy it.
If you have a lot of time on your hands, I would venture over to the Reaper Miniature website and start harping on them for their Sophie mascot.
Seriously, you have enough time for this? I’m busy recovering from Christmas eating and the gluttony of presents I gave out, to come home to find Seoni in my inbox wishing me a Merry Christmas.
Get your head unstuck from your politics and enjoy the season.
I’m not a woman, nor am I the ‘great white hope’ who must speak up on behalf of those poor helpless females who can’t decide for themselves what to find offensive or not, so I’m not gonna ride in on my glistening steed and be all offended on their behalf.
It would be nice if other men would follow that principle, and cease the inherently sexist practice of getting all worked up about women’s issues, because it’s the 21st century, and if a woman is bothered by something, she can certainly speak up and say so, without some big strong (and terribly condescending) *man* riding in to protect her from the oppression of the patriarchy.
Don’t like the treatment of women in our culture? Try not perpetuating the idea that they are weak and need to be defended by men. It’s never really been true, and it’s not terribly realistic.
I’m not going to repeat the comments earlier, most of which I agree with. I do want to point out that I find it offensive to even suggest that Lisa Stevens (Paizo’s CEO) is similar to Sarah Palin. Frankly, I find that far more insulting to Lisa than the X-mas image seems to be to you. If you want to highlight a perceived insult, I suggest you stop throwing them around yourself.
http://dougsworkshop.blogspot.com/2008/12/ineffectual-gamer-rants.html
‘However, it still reflects the cultural attitude that women’s bodies are for other people’s pleasure.’
The profond ignorance of this statement is shocking. A woman’s body, is exactly for the pleasure of others. More accurately, a womans body looks the way it does exactly for that reason. Sexual dimorphism has very likely been a powerful shaping influence in both male and female form and mind. It is in the interests of woman to be attractive to males, so over time, the female form has changed to become more attractive to males. Since it benifits males to be sexually attracted to females, those changes have been reinforced by similar changes in the male brain to be more attracted to aspects of the female form. There are good reasons you get ‘leg men’, ‘breast men’ and ‘bum/hip men.’ But it goes deeper, male bodies have been as effected by this as womans. It is just another selective presure on life.
Sex is the single most powerful driving force in any of our lifes(save a very, very few people.) It need not be a negative thing, and it certainly need not be paternalitic. After all, bonobo females control their society through sex.
Please go and read The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature.
I was going to leave it there, but as someone who appreciated the beauty of the female from and some who considers them selves a feminist, I feel the need to go a little further.
Depicting the naked and semi clothed human form is a mainstay of fine art. Many of our greatest works of art are nudes, especially female nudes. The depiction of nude or semi-nude need not be an abusive act. One need only look at Diana and Actaeon, for example to see female nudity in a position of power. Female beauty and sexuality is a deeply empowering thing, which should be embraced. Yet, at moments like this, you and others like you, look at one of the many tools of empowerment that woman can use to great effect, and say ‘it is wrong and weakening to use your beauty.’ Well your wrong, human beauty in all its forms should be embraced and encurraged.
Further still, when you try to portray, a single tongue in cheek nod in the general direction of cheesecake, as an abuse, being wrong and bad, you do more damage to feminism that a hundred such drawing. It is the shrill cry of ‘oh noez breasts’ or any number of other examples of stupidity done in the name of gender equality and womans rights which gives feminism a bad name, one that it does not truely deserve.
First of all, i think you are really barking up the wrong tree on this case. The holiday Seoni is nothing if not G-rated. In fact, I could go to the mall and find more risque pictures of woman in Santa costumes there. With Paizo having a substantial track record of very open-minded portrayal of homosexuals, different ethnic groups and a general low amount of profiling, I could name a number of RPG publishers more deserving of such a harsh interpretation of what, to me, equals a greeting card.
That being said, there is something I have felt the need to comment on for quite a while, and you just managed to be the straw that broke the camel’s back.
The picture might be taken to objectify Seoni. However, that is a deliberate interpretation of the picture. It is not the only such interpretation. It is not even the most likely, especially given the positioning of the cane, the facial expression, … all of which might have easily been chosen differently to push that particular message, had it been the intention.
If we were to avoid everything that might offend someone, or that might be interpreted to possibly infringe on anyone, not only does this run contrary to some ideas i personally hold very valuable.
It also speaks of a huge amount of cowardice in our (sub-)culture. Certainly, the stereotype of the gaming nerd calls for painfully low self-esteem, but do we really need to reinforce this notion among overselves by policing us of anything someone might feel offended by?
To me it is a beautiful picture of a familiar character, which offers a bit of additional holiday cheer. Asking if someone might subconsciously be a racist, sexist, homophobe, heterophobe, or any other negative designation is certainly possible, but except for the most blatant pictures I avoid doing so. To me, it seems to be an assumption of bad faith.
{Maybe Paizo’s art director isn’t as comfortable with non-White characters as you think.}
The art director in quest is KOREAN. As in ETHNICALLY KOREAN. As in BORN IN KOREA.
Anything else you’d like to say that is completely wrong?
exploitation now!
Honestly, any discussion about feminism and its relationship to sexualized art is going to be an unbelievably ugly and unwieldy argument. Know why?
Because the relationship between feminism and sexualized art is as complicated as the relationship between feminism and sex. To equate feminism to sex-negativism or even porn-negativism is unbelievably misleading. Feminism as a movement has been marked by multiple waves and reactions to reactions; it’s certainly the case that Sexual Revolution feminism looks nothing like Suffragist feminism, and to be completely honest, we’re at a point in time where the word “feminist” means very different things to different people depending on what perspective they’re coming from, and consequentially, it’s never all that safe to make any blanket assumption about what a “feminist” response to something looks like.
As far as the specific image, it’s honestly even more of a thorny issue. Why? Because the image in question was quite transparently a parody of and reference to 1950’s pin-up art. The problem this presents is this: Yes, said art *can* safely be said to have been exploitive of the women involved, however, at the same time, multiple later arms of feminism regarded the models and images of the 1950’s pin-up world as feminist icons: this art, and the models involved, can be regarded as the vanguard of the Sexual Revolution, possibly the most important series of events in 20th-century feminism. There’s a *reason* why Bettie Page’s passing earlier this month was so widely mourned in feminist circles, after all. So, to say that a transparently pin-up-style bit of art is necessarily or automatically exploitive or degrading of women, and incredibly offensive when viewed from a feminist perspective… well, it seems a bit myopic.
Women gamers should make and play their own games, and leave us guys to our games.
Personally, I don’t find candy cane girl attractive, however that’s just my personal preference, my preferences are for more sophisticated women than that.
It’s bad enough women try to run our lives into the subterranean hells of the abyss in the real world. Now they want want to do that in our fantasy worlds as well?
I think not. You are welcome to try though. Publish or perish baby.
Yeah, Seoni is Paizo’s Miss Fanservice. I understood the card as a sort of joke, as in “yeah, we know you guys like Seoni, so of course our cards look like this. har har har”
Its a guy joke, mocking our brainless fondness of scantily-clad ladies.
And the previous posters have it right on the money about candles and such like. Find something actually important to complain about.
(and for the record, I prefer the Rogue and the Barbarian to Seoni.)
More examples of Paizo’s objectification of women and fear of non-whites can be found simply by looking at their other mascots:
http://paizo.com/image/content/RiseOfTheRunelords/Pathfinder7_Paladin.jpg
http://paizo.com/image/content/RiseOfTheRunelords/Pathfinder4_Cleric02.jpg
Oh wait.
With all the sexism and racism that actually does crop up in geek culture, you decide to go after PAIZO?! You need to find some targets that actually do deserve ire, like say the comic industry. It will draw quite a bit less ridicule than jumping at shadows at the very least.
For the record, I see posts like this blog entry and GameDaddy’s whining about female gamers as two sides of the same coin: Neither are particularly healthy attitudes.
@d7: Thanks for your understanding. I went off a little more than I would have liked, and I apologize.
As to your “edit to add” and response to me above… Hmmm… the Sociologist in me can’t quite put his objection in to words, so he’ll have to think it over. I do think the objectification of males is a problem of equal severity, but I want to be able to say more than, “so there :p”, yah, know?
The Philosopher in me is just amused by the whole semiotic mess that we have here.
Just ordinary me still says your criticisms don’t adequately take the context that is Paizo and their product line and over all marketing strategy into account, but I acknowledge that that doesn’t make your criticisms any less valid.
*takes his ass off his head* Why does anyone think that thing makes a good hat? Again, sorry for the attitude.
I agree that “I’m a woman and not offended” is not, in itself, a complete and valid arguement. At the same time, I have to ask: how many women saying that is it going to take before it’s decided that whatever they’re talking about isn’t really offensive, and the ones who find it hostile are being oversensitive? A sizeable proportion? A preoponderance? A plurality? A majority? All living XX chromosome humans on the planet?
You’re a straight white male, and I’m going to take a wild guess and say you’re middle class or above (judging by the disposable income that lets you game) and probably at least nominally some flavor of Christian (because you didn’t also get offended by the wreath and candy cane). Which officially makes you the least oppressed demographic ever. It doesn’t mean your opinion doesn’t matter. But it also doesn’t mean you need to feel guilty. I think Set was right on the money: minorities don’t need anyone else to defend us. It’s great if you want to help, but you don’t need to take the lead any more.
I’m also a big fan of the anon comment at December 26, 2008 at 10:49 am, but then, I’m a sucker for any references to Artemis, even in the watered-down Roman version.
Whether sex as sales technique is kosher is a complicated issue. It looks like there are some strong arguments in favour of this particular example not being problematic, at least within the context of an otherwise sensible company.
So I would have no problem with this ad were it not for how it replicates a common thread in gaming-geek culture. This particular style of cheesecake /beefcake references one improbable standard of beauty over and over again. Yet another mesomorphic ectomorph body; late teens to early thirties. Broad shoulders, thin waist. Gender normative.. White-looking. Offering the female as explicitly sexual, and implicitly aimed at lads who are presumed to be straight; the male as powerful and sexually oriented towards impressing women with status, skill and strength. Statistically improbable breasts given the rest of her body. Etcetera etcetera. Again and again and again. It’s as if gaming artists only have the same two models for 80% of their artwork (have you taken a look at the 4th ed D&D illustrations?) – a model that looks like waaay less than 1% of the population.
No, this picture is not a problem on its own. And the *company* sounds smart, even commendable. But within the context of *gaming* it’s another bland disappointment.
Bland. I guess that’s what bothers me.
The kind of bland that makes me wonder where that legendary geek insight, invention and creativity is. What does it say about our culture or ourselves when our heroes don’t even *look* like us?
We’re geeks. We’re creative. We can imagine different forms of hero and sexy; more varied and inspired ones.
Tarren Dei, you win the internets. I wrote something petty and jerky, and you replied with something not only reasonable, but that indicates that you actually know what you’re talking about, unlike the majority of the other commentors. I am humbled, and I can’t even be displeased that you “won” that volley.
Yes, I walk on thin ice, but that’s because I try to be feminist despite my gender. There’s no thin ice here from speaking for women because I’m not even trying to. I’m speaking out against an attitude that has harmful consequences in our society (to women most directly, but it hurts everyone in some way). I don’t need to speak “for” anyone but myself as a member of this society to do that. Besides, since you’re familiar with feminist writers you’ll know that what I’ve said is only the most trite and well-established basics of female objectification and the implied male gaze. So not only am I not speaking for women, I’m actually being fantastically unoriginal by just getting on board with what many women have already said and written.
My bad about the comment about hoping Paizo sent something less exploitive to their women customers. I already wrote my mea culpa in a reply to Swordgleam.
Now let’s reply to the other comments from this morning…
@The Last Rogue: Plying its customers with cheesecake automatically puts a company in a certain category, CEO, art director, and gender notwithstanding. Yes, I was caustic in the post. I wasn’t in the email. It’s my blog after all, and if I want to be caustic that’s my prerogative.
@Vak: The “but women like it too” defense is old, old hat, and doesn’t hold water. It’s still a body being objectified, and it’s in a culture that routinely oppresses women with the “death by a thousands cuts” method. It’s one of those cuts, and I’m pointing that out. My question is most certainly not why there isn’t more beefcake, and I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear. Your last point is kind of silly. Let’s make an analogy: “Instead of wasting your breath on genital mutilation in countries that have always involved such practices, use your time to talk about real problems like world hunger or impending mass extinction.” It’s some kind of stupid Badness competition where only the monumental evil is worth resisting. Actually, we have plenty of breath to resist both the large and small harms.
@Doug: I like the analogy trick. It’s illustrative. How about, “If you don’t like beating women, don’t beat them.” Doesn’t really work, does it? If I’m saying that mailing customers cheesecake is a perpetuation of a bad part of our culture, d’you honestly suppose that being silent is going to further my beliefs? As for time, you had time to read the Paizo forums today and to comment here, so you’ve sort of said something stupid, haven’t you.
As for your link further down, you’re saying that to be a roleplayer I (and, by implication everyone, including women) have to just accept that cheesecake is part of being a roleplayer or “pack up my dice”. Last I checked, being a roleplayer only required roleplaying. Also, “this bad thing here can’t possibly be worth the effort to improve, because look at that other bad stuff!” isn’t a valid argument. And then you questioned my masculinity. Hi everybody, meet Doug. Doug is the poster boy for the sort of man who thinks caring about women’s rights is for “pussies”. You’re an idiot to post that kind of dick size contest bullshit in a feminist gamer’s blog, Doug.
@Set: Hi, I’m not a great white hope either. I think you failed to read the linked-to post in the lede of this post, and the part about the difference between “offended” and “exploited”. You’ll note that I never claimed to be offended, nor did I claim anyone else was offended. I claimed that the image is harmful, not offensive. I didn’t claim women are too weak to speak up, either. If you want to know, I do think that by being a man saying the same thing that other women have already said (see my reply to Tarren), that I’m perpetuating the idea that men care about the fair treatment of women just as much as women do. You, however, appear to be a man riding in to protect the male privilege to ogle scantily-clad women. That’s pretty lame, and pretty counter-productive here.
Interlude: Damn, but the quality of comments is going downhill. I’m going to have to tighten up my moderating standards.
@Joel: Sarah Palin is a counter-example to the claim that “if someone is a woman, they can’t possible participate in the oppression of women!” I didn’t compare them at all.
@Anon.: Evo-psych aplogia for the exploitation of women exist only because there are people ignorant about what evo-psych research means. Evo-psych is an explanation of why we do the things we do, not a justification for continuing to do them. Consider: We have an instinct to kill things when they make us angry, or when they have something we want. We’re supposed to be all civilised about that, though, and the same goes for not blaming instincts for how women are treated.
I’ve got nothing against fine art, or nudity. I’ve got a problem with how women’s bodies are used (and the term really is used), largely for men’s sake by the RPG industry. Female sexuality is empowering when it’s owned by women, but disempowering when it’s co-opted for men’s pleasure. Seoni is fanservice, not sexual power. Her entire existence is to put boobs and legs in front of eyes. It doesn’t get any less about female sexual empowerment than that. Hence, this is far from an “oh noez, brests!” post.
@TerraNova: The exploitation of women at malls somehow makes the exploitation of women’s bodies elsewhere okay? lolwut? “RPG nerds” have a horrible, awful track record of policing their own: just look at this post and the comments. Y’all are telling me that I’m wrong to object to the commercialisation of female exploitation, in more numbers than this blog has ever seen. I think the policing is already too much and goes the wrong way.
@sean: You seem to be implying that Korean women as an entire class have magical powers that make them immune to some of the most powerful memes of Western culture. That’s kind of counter-productive to your point.
Besides, I only speculated (that’s what “maybe” means) that the art director was part of why Seoni got White-washed. There’s plenty of other possible reasons why that happened. I don’t know why this depiction of Seoni is White, but that somehow she was drawn White is undeniable. It’s funny how only non-White characters only ever accidentally get drawn White (*ahem* Regdar?), while White characters are never accidentally drawn non-White, isn’t it.
@GameDaddy: OMFG, GameDaddy. Hey! Everyone that mistakenly thought I found the Seoni pic offensive? Look over here. This is what’s offensive.
GameDaddy, I’m sorry you have a deeply screwed up relationship to women as a gender. Women aren’t an alien species, and contrary to your rant, there’s less difference between men and women gamers than there is between different male gamers. Just FYI, more comments like that kind of women-hating crap will get sent to the circular file.
@Dr Checkmate: I thought about the objectification of men thing a bit more, too. I think it’s more problematic than I gave it credit, but sorting out how it works would take some pondering, because the male and female situation is culturally non-analogous. One difference is that the male imagery is still (mostly) aimed at a male audience. Not for pleasure, but instead as a persistent water-torture message about what “real” men should be like. (See some victims of said messages above in our commentors Doug and GameDaddy.) There’s more layers to male objectification than that, too.
In general I don’t have a problem with Paizo. I think they make good products, but there’s a fly in the ointment where it comes to their portrayal of women. There are certainly worse companies, but because I like what Paizo is doing otherwise is makes it just that much more disappointing. I haven’t acknowledged enough that they have an otherwise-good track record, you’re right.
@Swordgleam: Oh, I’m not Christian, I’m just solidly Western enough that the Christmas symbols didn’t tweak my “hey! unfair!” radar. There’s problems there, yeah, but I can’t tackle everything and I personally prioritise women’s rights when I have to choose how to spend my breath. Anyway, enough tangent.
It’s hard not to look like I’m taking the lead here, because I’m naturally leading my own blog. I really feel like I’m just a follower of (much more articulate) women who have done this more and better elsewhere, and it’s only natural to apply it to the subject that I blog about. (I’m a fan of Amanda Marcotte and Mighty Ponygirl, for an example of people whose lead I’m can only hope to follow, not to mention Butler, Fausto-Sterling, and other luminaries.)
And to completely reverse the order of my reply to your comment… I don’t know what percentages are necessary for a definitive answer to whether something is offensive or not. I think cultural values like this take a long time to change, and it’s done in small pieces. There are lots of voices on either side, and the definitive answer is only going to come once this particular cultural divide becomes old history. That’s the only way cultural values become obvious: which ones die out and which ones thrive. Obviously I’ve got an opinion on which values should win out, but I can only trust that the larger discourse will prove me either right or wrong.
Like I said before, I don’t have a problem with fine art. I’m not going to futilely attempt to prove some kind of nude-friendly credentials, but I’m not hostile to nudity or enjoying the human form, including women’s. I would love to live in a society where women weren’t treated as second-class and had their bodies co-opted for exploitation. We can (mostly) appreciate Michaelangelo’s David without worrying that it contributes to a pervasive cultural devaluation of men, but we can’t yet say the same for images of the female form.
As soon as you start ascribing subconscious malice to someone, you are on very thin ice indeed. You begin telling the person you know better what they intended or did than they themselves. Some people (me included) react very poorly to this, since you are in effect putting yourself as the only authority whose words are to be followed.
As for the general consensus of these comments disagreeing with you: The joke goes “One ghost driver? HUNDREDS!” Maybe your position does just not find so many supporters for a reason. While naturally, the group is not always right, and you should not blindly follow it, check their bearings once in a while. You might be surprised, and not just in a bad fashion.
I tried to put this in gentler terms last time, but might have been too polite. When you call on any group to “police itself” of potentially offensive materials, materials that might infringe on the rights of group X you are also saying “Group X is too weak to hold their own in this society. Too weak to defend themselves, so we need to all hand out concessions.” That is not how a free society works. Neither would I feel any kind of appreciation for such a measure if i benefited from it. In fact, it is quite telling about the ones championing the measure.
We as a subculture have been in the business of policing ourselves for decades, and i think our track record is quite significant. Heck, even though it is far from common usage, several major publishers favor female pronouns, the classic “damsel in distress” has become a rare exception, and fantasy settings have, as a rule, become so gender-neutral as to almost seem laughable. In fact, most fantasy worlds are more equal than earth ever was. That alone tells us most gamers are intelligent, thoughtful persons who want to do the right thing. Putting ever-more restrictive “speech codes” into place just smacks of condescending attitudes and patronizing to me.
I hope you consider these points. In case you do not wish to publish this comment (your right, it is your “house”), I would appreciate if you contacted me via email.
Stating that the human form, both male and female has been shaped by evolution to hold power of the opposite sex is not apologia, it is accepting the causes. You stated the female form was not for the pleasure of other. It is, so is the male form. Many of our attributes, for the size of our eyes to the shape of breasts and bums are all the way they are, to influence mating choice. These things are not gender negative, they are incapable of being, they are forces of nature, not petty human concepts.
You say using a drawn pin ups is an objectification and abuse of woman, that it is an example of male power over woman. I will flip it on its head. No woman suffered in the creation or as a result of this picture, Company, with a female C.E.O., is likely to benifit as a result of the image and the companies fan base will be drawn in even more towards supporting their products, at the expense of a minimal number of potential customers. A female art director is getting major support from the companies fans. Numerous female fans are getting to see a cute but powerful character put one over on the boys with nothing more than a little smile and some clevage. All the while poor, dumb smuck guys like me are left with a cheezy grin and lighter pockets. Who has really suffered here, woman or men. The men who have had their hard-wired predisposition to buy something with legs on it, or the woman who are major players in a company that leads the way in providing diversity in the RPG industry.
I am sorry, but your wrong and your giving those of us who actually want to make the world a better place on these issues a really bad name.
And some replies for comments just approved…
@drow: Care to elaborate?
@Greg: You’ve given me something to think about. A parallel that I’ve only recently been exposed to is the veil in Islam. Especially in Iran, the Burqua is an extremely complex symbol for similar reasons. It stands for oppression, of course, but it also stands for feminism because of its history in the feminist resistance as a means of safely smuggling women and anti-Taliban, feminist, and other literature. (Lesser versions of the veil are similarly complicated, but I already knew that. Burquas, though, blew my mind.) Until I learned that, I naïvely thought that extreme versions of the veil were always bad.
So… Seoni as a feminist icon? Judging from what other commentors have said about her being an icon of sexual power, there might be something to that in Paizo’s original intent. No, wait. I know why that’s not jibing for me: Betty Page is a feminist icon for feminists. She’s celebrated by feminists for her sexual empowerment. However, her sexual empowerment, and her basic sexuality, has also been co-opted for exploitation. So, taking a utilitarian calculator to that, the current cultural view of Page and other pinups is overwhelmingly sexist despite their justified celebration by feminists.
So (still thinking out loud here, and feel free to tell me I’ve taken a wrong turn or missed something) what does that give us about Seoni? I think that whatever her intent, she’s an unalloyed sex symbol for most of the Paizo fanbase. I think I’m safe to bet that the hornboys were the determinant demographic in Seoni being this year’s Christmas Card. (Am I wrong? How did goblins get to be the card last year?) If that’s the case, then Seoni is posed in that image in service to the hornboys, and by implication the image serves an exploitive role rather than an empowering role.
She might be meant to be an empower(ered/ing) female, sexual figure otherwise, I’ll grant you that. But, I think Paizo fell down in this particular use of her image.
Still, you’ve given me something to think about when I’m thinking about how pinup-style art plays into feminism.
(Oh, for the record I’m a sex-positive feminist. Nothing worse than calling sex dirty to oppress the gender currently most disempowered around the subject of sex.)
@Jared: That’s a good example of how sexism and the objectification of women also has negative consequences for men: Being a brainful guy who thinks women aren’t just designed to perfectly satisfy male desire is generally not appreciated in this culture. Thanks.
@Mikaze: I’m going to pick some nits here, because I think that kind of defense isn’t nearly as good as you do. The first image could easily be fit into the stereotype that Black people are more aggressive and war-like. The second image is just plain Orientalisation, which is never simple or unproblematic.
Now, you’re going to say that I’m being unfair, and I am. The point is that publisher’s can’t win if they’re not supernaturally careful to avoid indulging the two big “ism” of sexism and racism. Paizo’s depictions of Seoni are undeniably scantily-clad, and the loudest fan response is unabashedly of the “I’d hit that” variety. Not all the fans are doing that, yeah, but Paizo is deliberately fuelling that particular response with fanservice like this.
I’m not a comic nerd, so why should I blog about comics? If I tried, I’d be laughed at for being woefully unknowledgeable. So, no, I’m going to talk about sexism in roleplaying. Why Paizo, you wonder? I just shook my head at the sexploitation in Paizo’s otherwise-good products until they sent more of it to my Inbox. That specific poor choice is what I’m taking them to task on.
And for the record, thanks for sharing. I think I’m trying for a more healthy attitude about how women fit into our culture. I didn’t put up a big disclaimer that I’m sex-positive or that I don’t think women need men like me to “protect” them and treat them like precious, precious porcelain dolls. I think that’s the flipside of the coin you’re thinking of, and if so I’m definitely not there.
@TerraNova: Your comment gets published automatically since I’ve approved one already.
Meh, you didn’t say anything before that I wanted to follow, since we’re speaking about people thinking they’re an authority to be followed. Now you’re saying something of interest. There’s something to say for speaking your mind plainly, even if you’re coming across a bit harshly. My bearings are well-checked and are frequently taken in for testing by third parties despite my selfish wish that I could already be perfect, as you might see from my receptive replies to a few commentors. (At least some of those are above in this very comment, so you get a free pass on that.)
When I call on gamers to stop objectifying women, no, I’m not saying women are too weak to say so themselves. (Counter example: would men speaking out against wife-beathing mean that those men think all women are too weak to speak out on it? Should men just be silent about wife-beating? No, it’s a problem for everyone, not just women who are abused, and everyone can and should oppose it.) I’m agreeing with a significant number of women who’ve put thought into this, which most people choose to ignore. Feminists are often dismissed as man-hating harridans. Note that nobody has dismissed me for that, which means I’m reaching different people. My voice is one more, and more voices = more mindshare for the cause. Men can totally contribute to feminism without trying to “speak for” women just by saying “me too!” The problem, of course, is that I can’t just say “me too!” in a blog post and have anyone know or care what the hell I mean.
I don’t dig “free” societies. I think libertarianism is misguided. If you want to see what “free” decisions do, check out the tanking economy in the US, which was a direct result of the steady stripping of regulations on the banking industry since the 1980s. Clearly, individual banks used this increased freedom to do things that were not in their own self-interest, and less-powerful people are suffering for the banks’ bad “free” choices. Also, consider the Pinto, which Ford decided not to recall because settling lawsuits for untimely deaths due to exploding fuel tanks was cheaper than recalling and fixing all Pintos with a $5 part. “Free” societies/markets do stupid, self-destructive, and sometimes plainly evil things, and I’m not for that. I’m much more interested in just societies.
You’re right, the industry has gotten a lot better. However, things like that camel-toe crotch-shot Exalted cover still happen. Are you suggesting that because they’ve gotten better, we should just thank our lucky stars and not say anything about the camel-toe or the Seoni service? I’m not advocating codes, I’m raising a voice in the hope that more people realise that there might be a problem. I don’t think people are deliberately or subconsciously malicious (I think those that are are very, very few, and sick, sick puppies), but I do think that most people don’t spend the time to think about this stuff, or have never heard it suggested that maybe there’s a problem with that “hot chick” on the cover of the latest Favourite Game supplement, that is maybe connected to why those girls last week couldn’t take an innocent wolf-whistle without freaking out and running away.
Actually, I do sorta believe in “free” markets/societies, but I don’t think humans are infallible enough to pull it off. We’re not perfectly rational because we make ideological and emotional choices. To put the last nail in the free market’s foundational premise, perfect rationality wouldn’t result in correct decision anyway because we don’t ever have perfect access to even what we already know, leave alone the problem of not knowing everything needed to make a particular decision well.
@Anon.: Sorry, no. You can’t believe in evolution and know what you’re talking about and speak teleologically about the products of evolution. Our petty human minds can choose how we fold biological facts into our culture. The way we’ve done it in the West is not the only way, and it’s a way that (among other effects, good and bad) punishes women for being female.
“Putting one over on the boys with nothing more than a little smile and some clevage”? You must be joking. You’re saying that a women (fictional, whatever, it’s the message that counts) is succeeding because of her breasts and viewer-pleasing demeanour, and that makes her a role model? And that men are soft-brained tit-chasing powerless instict-driven meatbags? (Speak for yourself.) That is incredibly demeaning. Worse, the male bit is exactly the argument used to excuse rapists for their crimes. If you can’t see how demeaning what you wrote is (to both women and men) you’ll just have to take my word for it that you’re really, really on the wrong blog, have the good grace to stop making sexist comments on a feminist post.
Amy! Sorry I missed your comment in the pile. Thanks for it: you’re often, as here, more articulate and concise than I.
I can see what you mean about blandness, and I didn’t think of the lack of creativity it shows.
(Hey Sean, here’s another good example of how an ethnically-unWhite female art director doesn’t have magical powers of perfection by virtue of her gender and race when it comes to being an art director.)
I’d say more in reply, but your comment doesn’t need me.
I think you are changing the subject here. I have not said free-market systems are necessarily the best economic system, and I am not a libertarian. I strongly sympathize with some of their ideas, but like any ideology, they have taken a few decent precepts much too far.
Feminists as men-hating harpies. Yes, there is this perception. I think it is natural that when someone sees a comfortable status quo threatened. Just as it is natural for someone who perceives herself at a disadvantage to become somewhat bitter. However, I think we are past that age already. Most woman I know (and that includes my ultimate boss, who juggles 7 figures on an almost daily basis) consider the feminist movement a success, with little need for additional drastic campaigning. In fact, I heard one very gratifying quote a few weeks back: “If we start tearing up men’s magazines, when will romance novels be banned?” Equality means offering each and every person the choice on what they enjoy – not making sure that everything in the world is enjoyable to each and every person.
Now, back to the original subject: Woman need as thick a skin as men. Sorry, but feminism to me also means taking them to the same standard, not just affording them the same rights. One of these standards (one i also apply to minorities, sexual orientations, and any other potential -ism) is being able to see something they might not wish to put up on their bedroom wall, and accept it as an expression of anothers preference.
The Seoni image is miles away from that ugly Exalted cover (which disinclined me from buying that particular book – A much stronger statement than all the blogs in the world, I would think). A hardcore feminist might not want to put it up on their walls – but I expect them to be willing to let it slide much as I expect the black activist to accept a rural scene of the old south, which includes a black man wistfully looking into the sunset.
Small tangent about the Exalted Cover: I find it ugly. Just plain bad art. It might have been an attempt to cash in on a panty shot, but seriously – that “aesthetic” is just an appeal to the lowest instincts of the readership (“Bewbs an bootey”). I find it not so much offensive (if you look inside an Exalted book, you will see worse), but plain insulting. But that is my opinion, and I accept that some fans might have liked it. I finally caved because my group needed some of the material inside the book, but the art evolving from “classy with nudes” to “slutty nuns in boobland” was a contributing factor in me getting out of that gameline on second edition.
You speak about effecting social change. Your change will come by people claiming their place, not by them being handed emancipation by a loving authority. One of the things that will bring about that change is us being confident in what we believe in. That confidence in part stems from not second-guessing if something might indirectly be harmful to the “cause”, but in going up against the things directly and strongly harmful.
In the meantime, I would not think about it too much. Do not be an oppressor. Speak out against gross injustice (neither the christmas card nor the Exalted Cover apply, but i remember a TSR-era cover with a woman being flame-grilled by giants that might be borderline sexist). That is enough.
Thank you so much for this! I got flamed right off Paizo’s messageboards about four months ago for making the same arguments — that perpetuating the gaming culture of “women as objects” alienates female gamers and consumers. Women are, by far, the largest demographic of consumers in this country. I, as a woman, a consumer, a gamer, and as someone with enough disposable income to blow on quality gaming products, was seriously offended to learn that apparently I, and the characters I love to play (who DON’T look like they moonlight as succubi), don’t matter to their business.
When I got Paizo’s holiday email, holy good god, I got pissed off all over again. They have really high quality products and fantastic stories, so why would they lower themselves to the lowest common (and I really mean common!) denominator?
Also: It’s just bad art. Poorly drawn, bad, ugly art. For christ’s sake, her head is WAY too small for the rest of the body.
I’ve gotten some sleep and decided to go about this a different way.
You sent a non-caustic email to Paizo, chastising them for the use of Seoni in this manner. Then, on that same day (Christmas Eve) you post a caustic, inflammatory, sarcastic, and accusatory public message about that very same topic… before Paizo had a chance to respond to your email. Is this two-faced behavior the mature thing to do? The most productive thing to do? Aren’t your actions the equivalent of telling mom at home that you don’t like bologna sandwiches in your school lunch, then yelling to all your friends in the schoolyard that your mother is an idiot and she can’t make you the sandwiches you like?
Do you know that Paizo is known for having a strong, positive relationship with its customers and its community? Do you realize that Cosmo and Allison read every piece of email they recieve? Don’t you think that a reasonably-worded complaint like this would have gotten an answer? Do you think that not posting this on Christmas Eve is the best way to get your message across? How are you helping by doing this?
Anon, your comments have been deleted. I don’t think “leave if you can’t realise that you just said something incredibly demeaning” is a very complicated concept.
(Comment to Sean excised for being irrelevant now.)
@Sean: There’s a disconnect between what I wrote to Paizo and what I wrote here in my personal blog, yes. Contrary to the apparent popularity of this thread, my blog isn’t much of a schoolyard and is more like that tiny bricked-in courtyard that only the nerds hang out in. In that metaphor, it’s not really out of line to say “mom, I really don’t like bologna” and to say in the courtyard “dammit! I hate bologna!” If the guys half the schoolyard away in the Bologna Love Club get offended and decide to fill up the courtyard, the metaphor gets all bent out of shape and starts to fall apart.
As for it being Christmas or whatever, I’m not really operating on the same schedule y’all seem to be assuming. I currently have Mr Baby the Tiny Dictator napping on me, and Christmas Eve or Day aren’t really any different than any other snowed-in day for me, this year. Maybe when he’s older. As for it being inconvenient to Paizo, I rather think it’s the Bologna Club guys that have blown this up at an inconvenient time. I certainly didn’t expect this teapot tempest when I posted about what was on my mind, in my small-time blog of all the silly places. I also don’t think that I’m responsible for Paizo’s feelings, since they are, y’know, a company and they make the big bucks to deal with slightly-sarcastic customers.
Besides, they emailed me a bleached beachball-chested pinup girl for Christmas. Really, their timing was bad.
@Kristen: Thank you for reminding me that I’m not alone in thinking this way. That kind of being run out of town on rails is the kind of hostility I’m trying to highlight here, so thank you for sharing your experience. Yeah, Paizo is so good in other ways, and that just makes the ways they’re not good all the more disappointing.
@TerraNova: I don’t know how I can convince you that I’m not trying to speak from authority. If you want to hear what the real authorities on feminism have to say, there’s lots of literature out there that you can pick up. I’m not saying anything new or creative here, I’m just rehashing what’s already been said. I’m not handing anyone emancipation, as if that was even possible with only words. (It might be possible to use words to convince more people to not undermine other people’s emancipation, which is what I’m attempting.)
And, on that point, feminism is most definitely not “finished”. Women still occupy the worst jobs in the country, women are still killed by their husbands or boyfriends in statistically-disproportionate numbers, women still get bombarded with images of “beauty” that are unattainable to the point where some of them die when they get elective surgery to make themselves slightly closer to that supposed ideal. Society has slowly incorporated some of the very early feminist ideas, but it still has a long way to go.
I don’t know why you think women should have a thicker skin, because hi, I’m a man and I’m doing the complaining. It’s not “for” women, either. Why does everyone assume that a man, talking about what he thinks men should and shouldn’t do in order to be decent and fair human beings, is somehow speaking for women? Should only women point out how men’s actions are less than ideal? (For clarity, “men’s actions” here is more about the “my chestnuts are a roasting” Paizo fans who voted for T&A fanservice. I’m commenting on how women’s actions are less than ideal too, because, hey, maybe I’m commenting on how people’s actions are less than ideal, speaking as a person.)
Re: Feminism being “finished”:
I’ll be post-feminist when the world is post-patriarchy.
Re: Lisa Stevens, Paizo’s CEO:
Phyllis Schlafly was a woman too.
While I appreciate the ‘watchdog’ing you’re engaging in here, I agree with the majority of paizoians that it’s misplaced in this instance.
I’m a guy and also a feminist as I presume you’d call yourself. I’m rather sensitive to exploitation, etc., in general. This provoked at most a wry chuckle at the brazenness.
This somewhat reminds me of an interview with Nichelle Nichols I just watched (Uhura from Star Trek). She mentions people coming up to her and saying, “How terrible it is that you were forced to wear those miniskirts on the show.” Her reply, and I don’t hope to quote her eloquence, was that it was an expression of female freedom and sexuality.
It seems the gap between sexist “exploitation” and patriarchal “repression” can be rather narrowly defined.
For the record, it is Seoni – she’s wearing the same outfit (essentially) as on the frosty cover of Pathfinder #5. That cover on its own provoked a bit of discussion in this vein.
It’s also a tribute (as Doug hinted at) to Reaper’s “Holiday Sophie” – a succubus miniature that gets a holiday rendition each year.
What’s with the (implicit) comparisons of Lisa Stevens to porn stars and arch-conservatives. Can’t you make your points without insulting people?
d7, now we’re drifting into some of the vastly more thorny issues surrounding reclamation and re-evaluation of history. Taking the strong version of your reasoning, there, pretty much any effort to reclaim or push for a paradigm shift regarding a term or an icon is doomed to failure; there are certainly very few that have *already* become a net positive before any reclamation effort has started.
Moreover, if we *do* apply this standard to other areas of art, we end up being forced to call, say, the New Burlesque movement exploitive, because this rather distinct genre of performance art happens to share a common ancestor with modern strip clubs. That’s not really a line of argument I’d seriously entertain.
I do think, and it wasn’t something expressed in your initial post, that one *does* need to understand the image as a pastiche, and one tinged with a not-inconsiderable bit of irony, at that. Again, you mention nowhere in the blog post above, but upon viewing the art in question, I immediately was able to make the connection to some rather iconic pieces of WW II nose art; it was clearly an intentional reference to pin-up art as a whole
So, the next question is, if something’s being reclaimed, does that make it fair game for someone to adopt such a reference without it being “off-limits”, even if they’re not explicitly promoting the same social agenda? Provided, of course, it’s done in a self-aware fashion and it *isn’t* intended to further oppression, that is. My intuition is “yes”; to argue otherwise, it seems, would undermine the entire *purpose* of reclaiming terminology and iconography. And even the issue of reclaiming aside, there’s the self-aware nature of the art. By analogy, it may have been *offensive* when Tropic Thunder featured a character in Blackface for the entirety of the movie -it certainly was not being done to directly advocate in the manner that Spike Lee’s Bamboozled used it, and indeed, the point in Tropic Thunder was largely to elicit discomfort- but nevertheless, it would be foolish to call it exploitive per se.
So, back to this specific issue of this image. Are there other valid lines of complaint? Sure. It *is* basically the literal example of a company pandering to its sweaty-palmed male fanbase. However, it’s really worth noting that the specific content of the image itself-a pastiche to 50’s-style pin-up, an ironic nod to 1950’s pop culture and a grasp at an image that can live up to the fanbase’s requests while still failing to truly offend- was actually the wimpy way out in this situation.
Also, re: burkhas/veils and feminism in Islam,
It actually is quite a bit more complex than even that. Many in traditionalist societies regard modesty in public as part and parcel of sexuality, and look askance on westerners’ demeanor and attitudes towards sex. We call it sex-positivism, but to more traditionalist cultures, the stereotypical public displays of sexuality that marks shows such as Sex in the City looks every bit as oppressive and exploitive as modest clothing often seems to us. Ironic, that.
Basically, the Sexual Revolution was a watershed in 20th-century feminism, but that’s hardly true for feminism the world over. Food for thought.