This forum ostensibly exists so that women can have a place to discuss gaming, but in reality it seems to be a playground for feminists, male and female (and it seems mostly male feminists), to make the same tired and overwraught arguments about trivia they've been making for decades.
WOTC doesn't seem to want more women playing for any reason beyond More Customers. None of the ideas promoted in this forum seem to work their way into the game -- 4E is from every indicator so far going to be exactly the same as 3.5E in regards to art and the like, possibly "worse." Their attempts to court women have been extremely gendered -- publishing a pink book about girl gamers written by a "girly girl" who talks about Prada. And that seems to be the extent of it.
I can't help but wonder if this forum exists in reality to ghettoize these sorts of complaints, so that the majority of D&D players who use these forums can easily ignore the endless complaints of sensitive new age guys and angry women.
Does anyone think that WOTC actually cares at all? I don't.
You can't expect them to make drastic changes to a successful product.
I can't help but wonder if this forum exists in reality to ghettoize these sorts of complaints,
Probably not consciously, but the way I see it the subject would otherwise end up being all around the other forums (Concerns & Criticisms, General, etc). While they might not be opposed to that in principle, it's a good way to get a lot of back and forth trollish behavior, and I'm guessing by compartimentalizing it away into a separate forum they hope that only people genuinely interested in the subject will bother, so it will cut back on useless trolling.
so that the majority of D&D players who use these forums can easily ignore the endless complaints of sensitive new age guys and angry women.
Which shows just how successful *THAT* worked out.
Does anyone think that WOTC actually cares at all? I don't.
I'll have to agree with you there. WOTC may have been blowing a whole load of hot air on this issue. But a load of hot air is all that it is.
So nope, they really don't give a
apart from making a weak attempt at looking like the issues in question are even on the list. So they can if cornered point and go 'look there! we're doing something, we care about that kind of stuff, honest guv!' Still, the debate can be a bit of fun. So I guess Astrid's Parlour isn't a complete waste.
You can't expect them to make drastic changes to a successful product.
*cough*Fourth edition*cough*
Does WotC care? Uh, care about what? Getting more female customers? Yes, absolutely. It's in their best interest to increase customers (and do so in a way that, perferrably, does not lose them existing customers). You can hand-wave that away as just a soulless corporation going after money, but honestly, who cares what their motivation is? If they want more female players, they'll need to reach out to women better. If they successfully reach out to women better, they'll get more female players, and that's good for those potential female players who now get to enjoy a great game.
So what's the beef? Were you asking if WotC cares about women's issues / feminist issues? Um, of course not. It's a company. For-profit companies don't care about those sorts of things. For-profit companies care about making profits and staying in business. Individuals within the company may care, and if they rank high enough, may even take some steps in the company's name, but that's about it. That's how it works.
And there's nothing wrong with that. Responsibility to care about issues like this falls with individuals, not companies. Companies need to be focused on their sole reason for existence -- producing goods or services and making a profit while doing so.
Regarding the individuals in WotC, what can I say? I don't know any of them, but we've seen a few things. The female employees who have posted in these boards have offered support for the sexy style of fantasy art. The cover art of the book that led to this forum's very existence has been downcried by at least two feminists for being too revealing. It's possible some may be keeping quiet for reasons of job security, but thus far, it seems that the women of WotC (which includes the art director) don't find modern D&D itself to be particularly sexist or an automatic turn-off to women.
Also, "Ghettoize" is a strange choice of words. Every single forum is split off with the specific purpose of keeping relevant discussions there so that people who are not interested can view other boards.
, this forum has mostly been about egalitarians defending themselves and making counter-attacks against people in favour of strict gender-roles, with little though given to what female gamers actually want).And despite disagreeing with the OP about many things, I actually think there's something about this forum being used for topics that would be even more inflammable on the other boards (or at least harder to keep under control), in fact, I suggested it myself some time ago. Though the exaggerated claims about it being the feminist and 'sensitive new age guys' being the problem... well, in my experience, including before this board, the people most likely to initiate flamewars has been anti-egalitarians with their theories about how women 'really' are
But on the other hand, they know they'll loose a lot of their old customers if equality was ever implemented in D&D.
Okay. Here's an idea.
Let's stop stereotyping feminists as "bad-wrong girls who [want] to dress everyone in burqas." And let's also stop stereotyping the average D&D fan as a misogynist.
Okay. Here's an idea.
Let's stop stereotyping feminists as "bad-wrong girls who [want] to dress everyone in burqas." And let's also stop stereotyping the average D&D fan as a misogynist.
I don't think the average D&D fan is misogynist. I believe the average D&D fan have certain ideas about gender, consciously or not. I think most people have, but since D&D has traditionally been a boys club, I think it's somewhat stronger on average.
I believe that if men and women were portrayed with an equal amount of weight put on their sexual aspects (in pose, clothes, appearance etc.), and they were as sexualised as in the 4e art, there would be complaints about the male characters, and I know that when there was (apparently) equality with less focus on the sexual aspects, there were complaints about the female characters. WotC know that guys with holes in their armour don't sell, because many of the regular customers (who often have no problem with the female characters) would find them stupid, and judging form the hostility against pretty-boys (here and in the real world), I don't think that would be easily accepted either.
Let's also keep in mind why there were complaints about female character artwork in 3E -- they were fugly plus having "sexy" clothing. That is a bad combination. Mialee would not have summoned such commentary if she had been either covered up or attractive.
An assertion that the average D&D player would be displeased with equality in the game is a very strong and somewhat hostile claim to make, so make sure you can back it up well and have a good reason for making the declaration.
I think they care about these concerns, but they have to balance those against the concerns of other customers who already like D&D.
Giving women slightly more realistic armor would make them lose their existing customer base. REALLY!?
WOTC doesn't seem to want more women playing for any reason beyond More Customers.
Probably true. So? They don't really care about us beyond our existence as customers either. That's what businesses do; they sell things to customers. TSR didn't care about us either.
None of the ideas promoted in this forum seem to work their way into the game -- 4E is from every indicator so far going to be exactly the same as 3.5E in regards to art and the like, possibly "worse."
I wouldn't say that. A lot of people in this forum have had some good things to say about some of the art. Some of it is still "bad", but some of it seems "better". I don't think we've seen enough to know for sure. Besides, the amount of cleavage in the artwork is only one facet of D&D's gender exclusion. There are many easier, more direct ways to try and get women involved in the hobby, which brings me to:
Their attempts to court women have been extremely gendered -- publishing a pink book about girl gamers written by a "girly girl" who talks about Prada.
For someone who dismisses things as trivia, you seem awfully concerned about the color pink and the fashion of the author. The book seems "girly" for sure (I haven't read it, but that's the impression I get), but there are a lot of "girly" girls out there. If it brings them into the hobby, then that's a good thing. If it turns them off and makes them feel like they're being marginalized, then it's a bad thing. Overall, it seems that the book has gotten a very positive review from many women, despite the fact that it's pink. I think many readers take the pink thing as sort of an in-the-know sarcastic wink rather than the heavy-handed "all girls like pink" marketing of Barbie.
And that seems to be the extent of it.
I think the existence of this forum is a big step, as well as Shelly's articles on the site, and the videos and articles demonstrating all the women on the design team. These are good because they show us that WotC has women on the team in important positions, who thus have some influence on the product; and because it acts as an example to the world that women can contribute to a successful (arguably THE successful) role playing game.
I can't help but wonder if this forum exists in reality to ghettoize these sorts of complaints, so that the majority of D&D players who use these forums can easily ignore the endless complaints of sensitive new age guys and angry women.
Nah, it exists to contain the incessant whining of suburban rich-kid wannabe Young Republicans about how the evil feminists are taking away their freedom to look at boobies. Kidding, kidding. ;)
Does anyone think that WOTC actually cares at all? I don't.
You've got a bit of a contradiction here. You're saying they're trying to get women as customers, but also saying they don't care. It must be one or the other. I think they certainly do care about gaining more women as customers, otherwise I can't see the point of putting any effort into the alleged "illusion". If you're asking whether they care about advancing gender equality in world politics... well, I don't think they really put a lot of thought into it since they don't have much political power. Most likely, there are a variety of employees with varying political beliefs. I'd guess the majority are pretty liberal though, since many of their employees live in or around Seattle.
Besides, the amount of cleavage in the artwork is only one facet of D&D's gender exclusion. There are many easier, more direct ways to try and get women involved in the hobby...
Exactly. It seems like almost every thread seems to go back to the artwork, as if the only thing keeping women out of the game is a portion of the imagery. If you cant even get women to pick up the books in the first place or stick with the game once they've played it with someone who is already initiated, what good does "better" art do?
I think the existence of this forum is a big step, as well as Shelly's articles on the site, and the videos and articles demonstrating all the women on the design team. These are good because they show us that WotC has women on the team in important positions, who thus have some influence on the product; and because it acts as an example to the world that women can contribute to a successful (arguably THE successful) role playing game.
It does seem to me like WotC is making an active attempt to reach out to the female demographic and sometimes i wonder what else some people on these boards expect them to do.
It does seem to me like WotC is making an active attempt to reach out to the female demographic and sometimes i wonder what else some people on these boards expect them to do.
True... just because we don't see huge obvious attempts at gender inclusion doesn't mean they aren't trying or that they don't have a plan. It's a sensitive issue, and could easily backfire if they go overboard and look like they're pandering or insincere. The D&D crowd has been male-dominated for a long time, and I would guess that the marketing team isn't sure what the best course of action is to get more women involved. That's probably part of the reason this forum exists; to monitor people's reactions to what they're doing and adjust their marketing approach.
Wizards of the Coast seems to be engaging in a certain amount of illusionism, by which I mean the art of appearing to do one thing while one does another thing in fact.
...
Does anyone think that WOTC actually cares at all? I don't.
It's less of WoTC now caring at all, and more of WoTC having no real idea how to go about getting more women gamers.
And it's not their fault. Figuring out the psyche of half the human population, with all of the variations of each individual human mind, is a daunting task that nobody has yet even come close to completing.
The problem, of course is that in the absence of any real "experts", you start turning to people who claim that they're really strong advocates of women gamers. Unfortunately, these said people generally don't have any real clue how to attract more women gamers either - and instead focus on the topics that they're really interested in. Which, as you noted, revolves around same old feminist ideas that are born out of ideology rather than any real sound study of women's behavior.
Still, this doesn't surprise me. I said as much when they setup Astrid's that it's a bad idea because it won't actually encourage more women to play. And given that it's been months since we've had somebody come here and say "Hi! I'm a woman and I started gaming because of this forum!", it really has been quite a fulfillment of my initial assessment.
It does seem to me like WotC is making an active attempt to reach out to the female demographic and sometimes i wonder what else some people on these boards expect them to do.
I think if WOTC really wanted to create an audience of adult female gamers, they would start by creating an audience of preteen female gamers. To do that, they would have to produce a new game, something other than D&D, that was aimed at teen girls.
I think the primary reason there are far less female gamers than male is fairly easy to explain, and has nothing to do with the silly quasi-feminist theories about art and pronouns that get thrown out around here.
I started playing D&D when I was 12. I taught all my friends how to play. All my friends were male. Then I moved to another city, started high school, and put together a gaming group. We were crazy about it, and played every lunch, every afternoon. One of the guys had way cool parents who would let us all stay over late into the night, and sleep over on school nights. The core of our group was myself, that guy, and two other guys. We played maybe 30 or 40 hours a week. Not only did we not have any girls in the group, but we couldn't really invite any. When we were 14-16, no parent was cool enough to let their teenage daughter spend every other weeknight over at the house of some boy with a bunch of other boys.
Most dedicated gamers have a story like that, were they went through a period in their youth were RPGs were their entire life. Many lost interest -- during college I stopped gaming entirely for several years and focused on dating and stuff -- but many don't, or eventually come back.
Every guy I work with played D&D in high school. Most of them lost interest, but they all gave it a shot. By contrast, most of the women I know have heard of D&D, and had brothers or boyfriends who played, but never played themselves.
So I think if WOTC was serious about creating that audience, they would make it possible for girls to play a game with other girls. They would market it to girls through venues girls read.
But I don't think that will ever happen. WOTC isn't really interested in creating new audiences for D&D.
Your idea is pretty interesting though. I think part of the problem when making a game that preteens might play is that kids at that age are very much aculturated to pursue gender-specific activities. Boys at that point are growing up playing with footballs, guns, swords, GI Joes and the like. Playing a game where you pretend to be a character with weapons who kills monsters is right along the lines of male gender roles. For girls at that age, not so much. I think what your proposing could work in theory if they could somehow make a role-playing game that revolved around traditional female gender roles but was similar enough to DnD that girls could parlay their way into the world of monster killing if they wished to branch out. I think it would incredibly tough to pull off.
This does go back to a major issue that was raised when this forum first appeared too. The fact is that much of the DnD rules revolve around combat and killin' stuff, a theme which doesnt relate well to traditional female gender roles. I think that no matter what you do with the art, it will be very hard to get a significant number of women to play DnD unless there is a radical shift in mechanics towards something that appeals to women or there is a radical shift in culturel values of what women are supposed to be interesting in, which doesnt involve combat/killing.
I think the primary reason there are far less female gamers than male is fairly easy to explain, and has nothing to do with the silly quasi-feminist theories about art and pronouns that get thrown out around here.
I started playing D&D when I was 12. I taught all my friends how to play. All my friends were male. Then I moved to another city, started high school, and put together a gaming group. We were crazy about it, and played every lunch, every afternoon. One of the guys had way cool parents who would let us all stay over late into the night, and sleep over on school nights. The core of our group was myself, that guy, and two other guys. We played maybe 30 or 40 hours a week. Not only did we not have any girls in the group, but we couldn't really invite any. When we were 14-16, no parent was cool enough to let their teenage daughter spend every other weeknight over at the house of some boy with a bunch of other boys.
Most dedicated gamers have a story like that, were they went through a period in their youth were RPGs were their entire life. Many lost interest -- during college I stopped gaming entirely for several years and focused on dating and stuff -- but many don't, or eventually come back.
Every guy I work with played D&D in high school. Most of them lost interest, but they all gave it a shot. By contrast, most of the women I know have heard of D&D, and had brothers or boyfriends who played, but never played themselves.
I don't understand your explanation. You're saying the reason girls don't play D&D is because girls don't play D&D? I don't see what you think D&D did wrong and what it should do differently if it wanted to attract female gamers. Are you just saying it all comes down to your parents not letting you invite girls over? What was stopping girls from going and buying the game to play in an all-girl group?
I don't understand your explanation. You're saying the reason girls don't play D&D is because girls don't play D&D?
No, he's saying women don't play D&D because they see the game as a "guy game".
It's like how American football appeals to men (who follow it closely), but fails to spark interest among most women.
No, he's saying women don't play D&D because they see the game as a "guy game".
It didn't sound like he was saying that anywhere in his post. Are you sure that's not just what you're saying? Anyway, that's sort of just sidestepping the question that WotC faces: why do many women see it as a game that is not for women, and what can be done to remedy that?
It didn't sound like he was saying that anywhere in his post.
It's more or less what he meant. The guys bonded in their childhood playing this game. The girls didn't. End result? It became a "guy" hobby.
To me its pointless...
Woman have the same rights as men (at least where I am from - hell my boss is a woman (and she is the best boss I ever had))
Now its time for men to redifine there new role in society.
Don´t like the D&D Artwork because its "sexist"? Dont buy it.
Make yourself your own "rulebook" and off you go.
I never (never never never) had problems with girl (or more accurate "women", because I am 36 years old and most of the gamers I play with are over 25 years old) gamers because they where offended because of a "chainmail bikini".
How insecure do you have to be to be offended by a picture...
"Oh my god... "I not as muscled as Krusk the Halforc..." "my sword is not as long as Redgars"... Me no buy book of evil company!!!"
So... what did I want to say? Yeah, I have lots of women gamers, because I can shape a good story and I care for all the characters...
And believe it or not... the most sexist statements in my gamingrounds always come from women...
And thats the way I like it....
now flame on (sorry Mr. Storm)
greets from Vienna, Austria... Michael
Woman have the same rights as men (at least where I am from - hell my boss is a woman (and she is the best boss I ever had))
Having the same rights does not mean they are treated on an equal level by society. There are some things you can't outlaw.
I know many female gamers, and most of them play games that have more sexualized artwork and whose websites do not have a forum specifically for discussion of the topics this one does.
I admit it could be coincidence, but it does seem that creating a forum that implies women don't play the same as men causes more problems than it solves.
To finish, I think that the solution to the problem of D&D's supposedly not being girl friendly would be to play up the aspects that women like to be 100% equal with those that guys like, and not try to "clean up" the part that guys do like.
chain-mail bikinis are something that I really don't think anyone should like, they're just silly.
An actual bikini, or maybe just realistic clothing that happens to be revealing, that's more the right sort of thing to like.
She wears them in clubs and they are cool
But then there are not many Monsters in the club, but I dare say that her AC went up... suddenly not every whimp in the club hits on her
But on the other hand, they know they'll loose a lot of their old customers if equality was ever implemented in D&D.
Anyone who would quit playing cos there is "equality" between male and female gamers is no loss IMO.
This comes from the pulp days, when Fantasy and Sci-Fi fiction magazines needed something arousing to the interests of the customers. The stories were usually bad, and the art was worse. Take some time to read one of the classics by Robert E. Howard: Undeniably great, but undeniably sexist and racist in content as well.
This is not an excuse for present attitudes, merely the well from which it springs.
I don't like Fantasy art, and D&D art especially. D&D has always scraped the bottom of the barrel. IMO, only Dragon and Dungeon had good art, and that was only the cover, and only every so often. Once upon a time Brom, an artist who I thought very talented, used to do the Dark Sun books, which was perhaps the only bikini-appropriate setting.
Things have obviously changed. With a focus on younger gamers, and an increase in the use of comic-book style art (which can be quite good at times), it was not unexpected that the comic-bookish overstated cleavage would not be going anywhere.
Ultimately, however, while the art is part of the finished product, it is no doubt less important than the rules, the typesetting, and the layout. With a project rife with fish to fry, it would be folly to assume that they spent much time on judging the art on it's merits, let alone considering the criticisms of an admittedly small subsection of their demographic. They merely want to see if it is aesthetically pleasing, and then get on to the more pressing issues.
The Art is perception, and thus just window dressing. The rules are reality. Thankfully, the rules do not have any detriments attached to playing a female character, nor bonuses to playing a male. That's the pudding to check for proof.
This does not change the fact that some of the art is degrading. The only way for the customers to implement change is to make it profitable for WotC to change it. Combined with the low population of women gamers, it seems unlikely that a boycott would accomplish anything.
Until then, I agree the art sucks. If you still want to buy the books, then I recommend doing what I do: Don't buy it for the art.
Sorry for the Novel.
I don't think so. 4E preview artwork has plenty of abs armor holes and the like on the male characters
No. Since people couldn't seem to agree on it, I made a quick count (better than arguing endlessly about whose perception is superior). I looked at the art from Races and Classes, excluded bare arms and lower legs, since that's more normal, practical, and generally not considered sexy, and I split it up into bare shoulders, upper chest/cleavage, belly, and thighs, and counted how many male and female characters wore what. I stopped after counting thirty or so male characters covered from head to toe, and about 1/5 the amount of women similarly dressed, and and maybe one guy with bare belly, chest, or thigh for every 6-7 women similarly dressed. There were some guys with bare chests alright, but usually following the same tired old 3e tradition of being ugly or monstrous (old, bald dwarf, dragonborn, and tiefling with that ugly bone-beard), and while some of the male armours were somewhat impractical, they usually didn't feature any girlie-holes.
I also think the anti-pretty-boy idea is overdone. There's a vocal minority who may feel threatened, perhaps, such as with that Dragon issue that keeps circulating around, but I really don't think most people have much of a problem with it. Pretty boy heroes have been popular in anime for a very long time among both sexes.
And yet I've not seen any attempt at bringing them into D&D. And lot of older gamers (and probably younger too) seem to hate anime.
Let's also keep in mind why there were complaints about female character artwork in 3E -- they were fugly plus having "sexy" clothing. That is a bad combination. Mialee would not have summoned such commentary if she had been either covered up or attractive.
Jokes about Mialee notwithstanding, the guys I've heard talk about their complaints about 3e, specifically mentioned a lack of sexiness, and seem to pretty much equate sexiness with scantily clad girls, especially girls in outfits made to limit movement, maximise discomfort, and minimise protection (like metal armour with girlie-holes).
Of course, the reason why there's so little eye-candy for women, might very well be that women seldom write to a company and complain that that they weren't sexually aroused enough by the pictures in the company's books, unless those books are about sex. My preferred method is simply not to buy the products, which I'm doing right now.
*cough*Fourth edition*cough*
Good point, but I was largely talking about thematic changes. 4E is still dungeons and dragons in every thematic way. Such as...
Giving women slightly more realistic armor would make them lose their existing customer base. REALLY!?
...artwork. John, of course "slightly more realistic armor" won't be a big deal, but a drastic change in the visual style to ultra-realistic equipment/armor/weapons might indeed cost them some customers. That's why they're making "slight" and not "drastic" changes, as I said.
Example: thinking of three women in my own life. If I were to introduce Girl #1 to roleplaying, I'd start with something like the Serenity RPG - she's a Star Trek and Battlestar Galactica fan as well as a Browncoat. Girl #2 enjoys Highlander and The Matrix: I might start with World of Darkness in that case, or maybe Spycraft. Girl #3, who reads Tolkien and Robert Howard and laughs at how half the women in the Conan stories spend the latter half of the story running around nude after they somehow lose their clothes in the first half? D&D. And all things considered, Girl #3 would be complaining more that the guys aren't all brooding bronzed warriors with swarthy thews rather than what the girls were wearing.
I looked at the art from Races and Classes
Okay. Well, I was specifically referencing the art on the preview articles. I don't own the two preview books, so I'll concede that things could be different there.
And yet I've not seen any attempt at bringing them into D&D.
Which is disappointing. But that's not what I was arguing.
Jokes about Mialee notwithstanding, the guys I've heard talk about their complaints about 3e, specifically mentioned a lack of sexiness, and seem to pretty much equate sexiness with scantily clad girls, especially girls in outfits made to limit movement, maximise discomfort, and minimise protection (like metal armour with girlie-holes).
You were here when we had the big discussions about the art in 3E. Please excuse the grouping and accept that it's simple shorthand, but the feminists pointed out a lot of the "skimpy dress" pictures (frenzied berserker, scarlet corsair, Ember), and the... others?... argued that those didn't appeal a whole lot because the women weren't attractive. I can't count how many times I and others complained that most of the characters (male and female alike) were simply unattractive people (with a few notable exceptions, particularly in a couple of the later splats).Also, it's a little shady to claim that the guys want women "in outfits made to limit movement, maximise[sic] discomfort, and minimise[sic] protection." What a ridiculous idea. Those may or may not be side-effects, depending on how much you stick to realism in art and earthly materials and physics in clothing, but to imply that that's the purpose of the clothing, like the intent is to force women to be weaker by making them restrained and uncomfortable, is unfair and counter-productive to the purpose of encouraging dialogue and listening to opinions. It's useful only in moral bat beatings.
Of course, the reason why there's so little eye-candy for women, might very well be that women seldom write to a company and complain that that they weren't sexually aroused enough by the pictures in the company's books, unless those books are about sex.
Or alternatively, the women in charge of WotC's art and marketing have different tastes than you. The men drawing most of 3E's female art certainly have different tastes than me.
My preferred method is simply not to buy the products, which I'm doing right now.
Sad, especially that this decision almost certainly came as a result of arguing about things in Astrid's (particularly since you were a 3E customer, and previous discussions have pointed out that it was certainly no better in numbers than what you've described regarding the preview books). Seeing complaints and participating in them result in a decrease in enjoyment of a product with flaws you otherwise may have easily looked over. I've had this happen to me before (particularly with Oblivion).
One of these days I'll learn to avoid forums for entertainment products...
a drastic change in the visual style to ultra-realistic equipment/armor/weapons might indeed cost them some customers
I would certainly be unhappy. But given that I'm also unhappy with current dungeonpunk, I'd probably still be a customer. I think you're still right, though.
drastic change in the visual style to ultra-realistic equipment/armor/weapons might indeed cost them some customers.
You know, at the risk of being flamed for this, I don't really understand why it's a big deal one way or the other. Are there seriously people who are so intent on the artwork that it really effects their purchasing choices? I mean honestly, my reaction to the artwork is either "that's neat" or "that's ugly", but only while I'm actually reading through the actual text of the book. The only place the art really matters to me at all is the MM, but that's just because I like to have some idea of what the monsters look like so I can more easily describe them.
Probably true. So? They don't really care about us beyond our existence as customers either. That's what businesses do; they sell things to customers. TSR didn't care about us either.
Actually, I don't think that's true. I think TSR did care, but learned quickly that they could never hope to please the complainers without losing existing customers. 2nd Ed. took those complaints seriously, and tried to have more realistic artwork...and people complained it was boring and dull. Meanwhile, the feminists continued to complain it was sexist.
For someone who dismisses things as trivia, you seem awfully concerned about the color pink and the fashion of the author. The book seems "girly" for sure (I haven't read it, but that's the impression I get), but there are a lot of "girly" girls out there. If it brings them into the hobby, then that's a good thing. If it turns them off and makes them feel like they're being marginalized, then it's a bad thing. Overall, it seems that the book has gotten a very positive review from many women, despite the fact that it's pink. I think many readers take the pink thing as sort of an in-the-know sarcastic wink rather than the heavy-handed "all girls like pink" marketing of Barbie.
I think that has more to do with the fact that feminists, like Erato, have no idea what women want. I'm not saying that pink is bad, I'm just recognizing that "Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress" is a very gendered book, it positively screams "This is for girls!" The feminists would have you believe that women don't want things marketed to them like that, that women don't want to be targeted as women. I think that's is a very suspicious claim that is based in feminist theory and ideology, and has nothing to do whatsoever with what the market actually shows.
Nah, it exists to contain the incessant whining of suburban rich-kid wannabe Young Republicans about how the evil feminists are taking away their freedom to look at boobies. Kidding, kidding. ;)
Life-long Democrat, but thanks for making assumptions.
You've got a bit of a contradiction here. You're saying they're trying to get women as customers, but also saying they don't care. It must be one or the other. I think they certainly do care about gaining more women as customers, otherwise I can't see the point of putting any effort into the alleged "illusion". If you're asking whether they care about advancing gender equality in world politics... well, I don't think they really put a lot of thought into it since they don't have much political power. Most likely, there are a variety of employees with varying political beliefs. I'd guess the majority are pretty liberal though, since many of their employees live in or around Seattle.
I mean they don't care about the complaints that people like Erato make, that people like her (and ArcTan, and Dove Arrow, and Jayne Cobb, etc.) might as well be shouting at a wall for all the good it will do. In the end, all they seem to achieve is to drive wedges in the community.
I don't understand your explanation. You're saying the reason girls don't play D&D is because girls don't play D&D? I don't see what you think D&D did wrong and what it should do differently if it wanted to attract female gamers. Are you just saying it all comes down to your parents not letting you invite girls over? What was stopping girls from going and buying the game to play in an all-girl group?
No, I'm saying women don't play because girls don't play.
I don't think D&D did anything wrong. What I'm saying is that there are social factors that have nothing to do with the game that keep women from playing, and that -- short of producing a game for girls and marketing it aggressively to girls -- there is nothing WOTC can do to overcome those social factors.
No amount of tinkering with the game is going to change the general perception in the public that D&D is a "guy thing," and girls aren't clamoring to get involved in "guy things."
And Zinegata got exactly what I was saying. Her responses said it as well as I can.
I think that has more to do with the fact that feminists, like Erato, have no idea what women want. I'm not saying that pink is bad, I'm just recognizing that "Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress" is a very gendered book, it positively screams "This is for girls!" The feminists would have you believe that women don't want things marketed to them like that, that women don't want to be targeted as women. I think that's is a very suspicious claim that is based in feminist theory and ideology, and has nothing to do whatsoever with what the market actually shows.
Hurray for generalizations. Boy, those are fun.
Is it really fair to say that Erato, who is a woman, doesn't know what women want? But you, a man, do? Erato knows what she wants, and she is a woman. So she knows at least what one woman wants. Perhaps you also know what some women want (either because they have told you "I want this" or because there are some women in the world who conform to your ideas about "what women want), but you're no more magically in-tune with All Women than Erato is.
Of course Confessions is a highly gendered book. And it's marketed towards a specific type of woman. To be honest, when my husband originally told me about the book, I had no real interest in it, and I'm pretty clearly not the intended audience. The intended audience is primarily "girly girls," many of whom would probably never have even considered playing D&D.
Again, when you start making generalizations about "what women want," it becomes problematic. Some women love pink. Someone must be buying all those pink cell phones, after all. Some women (even some of those women who like pink) find the "It's pink, so it's for women; don't you like it?" attitude to be tiresome and a little offensive. Women are individuals. When your method of marketing to women is to make your gadgets available in pink, it shows a lack of understanding of that individuality and, frankly, a lack of effort. Honestly, I'd much rather have a purple phone, but I couldn't get one, so I settled for black. Other women might love to have a pink phone, but that's because they happen to like pink, not because they're women. Some (perhaps even many) of those women who love pink are also women who embrace the "girly" or the "ultra-feminine." Others just happen to find pink to be a pleasing color, regardless of its "girly" connotations.
Do you not, as a man, ever find it tiresome to be constantly targeted by marketing that plays on "masculine" stereotypes? Have you never wished that a commercial for a razor could just show you how great a shave the razor will give you without also trying to prove how "manly" and "awesome" and "hardcore" that razor is?
I don't know, maybe you don't. I do.
Rant
I get tired of infomercials trying to sell me pots with strainer lids that do so by showing me a woman trying to drain the water from her spaghetti accidentally dumping it down the sink in the process, and then showing me her ******* husband sitting at the table irritatedly tapping his watch. I get tired of radio commercials where I have to listen to a bunch of men rave about how wonderful and young their wives look after getting some cosmetic treatment from the local hack. I get tired of watching men on the TV rave about how smooth their girl's skin is now that she's using some lotion or other ("She's like glass" WTF). Does that mean that sort of marketing doesn't work? I don't know. It turns me off, sure, but maybe it has exactly the desired effect on some people. I'm not those people; I can't say.
You know, at the risk of being flamed for this, I don't really understand why it's a big deal one way or the other. Are there seriously people who are so intent on the artwork that it really effects their purchasing choices? I mean honestly, my reaction to the artwork is either "that's neat" or "that's ugly", but only while I'm actually reading through the actual text of the book. The only place the art really matters to me at all is the MM, but that's just because I like to have some idea of what the monsters look like so I can more easily describe them.
Well...it matters to me. The art is a big reason why I buy the books. It's why I bought the preview books certainly.
Would it prevent me from buying D&D? Probably not. But I can see being dissapointed in the art.
I own a lot of Forgotten Realms books that I barely used because of the art. Did I really need the FR Player's Handbook when I don't play FR? Or the Shining South because I like Thri-Kreen?
Not really.
Actually, I don't think that's true. I think TSR did care, but learned quickly that they could never hope to please the complainers without losing existing customers. 2nd Ed. took those complaints seriously, and tried to have more realistic artwork...and people complained it was boring and dull. Meanwhile, the feminists continued to complain it was sexist.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree about that. TSR wasn't making 2nd edition because they cared about you; they were following their own vision (and Gygax's vision) of what D&D should be, and you just happen to have the same tastes. Personally, I think 3e is a much better game than 2e. That doesn't mean that they made 3e because they "care" about me. Opinions will range all over the place.
I think that has more to do with the fact that feminists, like Erato, have no idea what women want.
How can feminists have no idea what women want? Most of them are women. They know what they want. I could easily just turn it around and say that anti-feminists, like you, have no idea what men want, so no one should listen to your opinions on D&D either.
I know what I want, and I know there are many men and women that agree with me. I know there are many that disagree as well. Discussing things in this forum is part of the way we let WotC hear our voices.
I'm not saying that pink is bad, I'm just recognizing that "Confessions of a Part-Time Sorceress" is a very gendered book, it positively screams "This is for girls!" The feminists would have you believe that women don't want things marketed to them like that, that women don't want to be targeted as women.
Most feminists wouldn't say that. I think you might have an incorrect idea of what feminism is, and how it acts in politics and business. It is not the idea that all gender should be "hidden" or "ignored" in an attempt to make everyone equal. That's actually the "anti-PC" crowd's solution for equality. Feminism is about bringing gender to the forefront of the conversation; forcing people to talk about it and look at their own preconceptions and actions. A book written primarily to women about women by a woman is not anti-feminist at all; in fact, many books in women's studies classes are arguably written to women about women by women.
The problem most feminists have with marketing to women is not that women are being marketed to; rather, it's the specific things that are being marketed and the way they are marketed. An ad that markets vaccuum cleaners to women by showing how happy their husbands will be when they clean the house might anger many feminists, but that is because of the roles they are reinforcing in the ad, not just because it's an ad.
I mean they don't care about the complaints that people like Erato make, that people like her (and ArcTan, and Dove Arrow, and Jayne Cobb, etc.) might as well be shouting at a wall for all the good it will do. In the end, all they seem to achieve is to drive wedges in the community.
I think they certainly care; the primary reason companies put up forums like this, which are expensive, is to be able to sift through it all for marketing data. They want to gather opinions of what people like and what they don't. If "the feminists" are wildly outvoted by "the anti-feminists" then you're right, they will probably side with the anti-feminists and put everything in a chainmail bikini or whatever it is that they seem to want. But WotC's marketing department probably isn't separating people into two big groups of "feminists" and "anti-feminists", just like they're not separating people into "pro-4e" and "anti-4e" like many posters here try to do. They know that everyone has different opinions, and that they are individuals, even though they skew towards certain demographics. Their focus is to try to please the key target demographics while making changes that will hopefully bring in new demographics without losing the old ones. So even if someone is a minority on the forum, they will be looking for a way to incorporate their desires without overly hurting the majority, to find a perfect balance. That's what marketing departments do.
As to "driving a wedge in the community", I think that's a good thing. They are arguing their viewpoints and causing other people to try to counter their viewpoints. Conflict is the only way to bring about change. An internet forum where everyone was forced to agree with each other all the time wouldn't serve much purpose, would it?
Well said.
Is it really fair to say that Erato, who is a woman, doesn't know what women want? But you, a man, do?
You put words in his mouth. I bolded them for you.
Furthermore, you question that a man could possibly know more about something than a woman, and that something is not something that is intrinsically known by women. That's sexist.
I'm sure there are female doctors that know a whole lot more about male anatomy than I do. And female psychologists who could tell me more about how my own damn brain works than I could.
Again, when you start making generalizations about "what women want," it becomes problematic.
Depends on the context. In this context, Rhinodon was clearly talking about market trends. In such a context, this is a very valid thing to discuss.
When your method of marketing to women is to make your gadgets available in pink, it shows a lack of understanding of that individuality and, frankly, a lack of effort.
It is impossible to make a gadget that appeals intrinsically to every individual, and there is a cost associated with creating variations. Producers balance this equation to arrive at the number of variations to produce and how to design those products to best appeal to the largest number of consumers.
Do you not, as a man, ever find it tiresome to be constantly targeted by marketing that plays on "masculine" stereotypes? Have you never wished that a commercial for a razor could just show you how great a shave the razor will give you without also trying to prove how "manly" and "awesome" and "hardcore" that razor is?
I'll answer for myself: no, I do not. And I have never, despite being far from macho. Possibly because I've never had masculinists teach me how it's wrong, offensive, and treats me as a lesser person, but whatever.
I get tired of...
Oi. I think you watch too much television aimed towards the bottom rung; I've not seen the sorts of things you're talking about. YMMV.
There's a stigma for girls participating in "guy things," just as there is for guys participating in "girl things." I don't like it, and one of my fondest wishes is that we could stop dividing the world into "girl things" and "guy things," but there it is.
I don't think this is the case anymore. Women that get into "guy things" are celebrated as advancing the cause of womankind, breaking ceilings, standing up for themselves, and so forth. Men that get into "girl things" are still ostracized and mistreated, however.
You know how many X-Men Evolution action figures were female, as far as I can tell? One. Just one, ever. Storm was the only one who got an action figure, and all those various other female characters were utterly ignored.
I remember the Storm figures from the original X-Men TV series. They were always the most common ones available at the stores, and it's because almost nobody bought them.
Storm is one of the most recognizable and popular female X-Men characters. If they couldn't sell toys of her, why would they risk making a bunch more of other characters?
Just basic marketing. Little boys (the primary audience of superhero action figures) still think little girls have cooties.
So yes, it is because girls decided, at large, not to watch the show / buy the characters. If they did, one would presume Storm would have sold a lot better, and then we'd have seen lots more X-Men female toys.
At this point it becomes a nature vs. nurture question ("why didn't more girls watch X-Men / play with action figures?"), and there's no point in barraging each other with our (essentially baseless) opinions on that split. Science will eventually figure it out.
For the record, I wish that wasn't the case. I'm not dating a girl that is into comic books and action figures for no reason.
How can feminists have no idea what women want? Most of them are women.
This logic flies counter to the "women are individuals" idea. I have no idea why you would choose to make this argument otherwise.
As to "driving a wedge in the community", I think that's a good thing. They are arguing their viewpoints and causing other people to try to counter their viewpoints. Conflict is the only way to bring about change.
Uhm, no. "Driving a wedge" means that you don't talk to each other. You make use of ignore lists and separate forums. There is no conflict because there is no communication.
This logic flies counter to the "women are individuals" idea. I have no idea why you would choose to make this argument otherwise.
I think you're taking my quote out of context; I follow it by talking about individuality. I don't mean that each feminist knows what all women want, because of course, all women want different things (all feminists do too). I meant they know what some women want, themselves included, and that makes their opinions just as valid as the implied "normal women" that Rhinodon seems to be referencing.
Uhm, no. "Driving a wedge" means that you don't talk to each other. You make use of ignore lists and separate forums. There is no conflict because there is no communication.
I guess he could mean that, and I agree that ignoring each other instead of listening to each other is a poor solution to any problem. But it doesn't sound like he's got Erato or his other pet peeves on his ignore list, and he hasn't left the forum. He seems more concerned that they're fighting with him, and he wants them to shut up and go away so that the forum only contains people who agree with him, under the pretense that WotC doesn't care and that nothing they say will ever change their mind.
For what it's worth, I don't feel any of those posters he's listed have driven a wedge into the community. A few have a somewhat inflammatory posting style, but that's pretty common everywhere on the internet. I agree with much of what they're trying to say, even if I would say it differently.
P.S. edit: my response to a commercial
It's Pink!
it's a razor...
It's Pink!
I don't shave...
But it's Pink!
... >_>
Yeah, I'm glad the guy commercials don't do that to me.
I meant they know what some women want, themselves included, and that makes their opinions just as valid as the implied "normal women" that Rhinodon seems to be referencing.
It would if we were simply discussing the validity of opinions. However, Rhinodon appears to be discussing things from the angle of an overall trend, majority opinions, that sort of thing. There's a difference between arguing that feminists' opinions / wants are unimportant and arguing that they don't match what "mainstream" women want.
For what it's worth, I don't feel any of those posters he's listed have driven a wedge into the community. A few have a somewhat inflammatory posting style, but that's pretty common everywhere on the internet.
Eh, well. Half of them, agreed :p But now we're approaching CoC violations.
So, on one level, it is absurd to say that a removal of sexual elements is a way to market a game (specifically dnd) towards women. On the other hand, this raises the question of what is actually meant by "marketing dnd to women"?
Personally, I think it's an empty question. There's nothing so universally adored by women that its addition will increase the game's appeal generally to such a large and diverse group. This is not actually a problem, but rather an artifact of a man's tendency to think of women as a deviation from the standard person (Personal Experience: I once asked a player to give me three details of a character's personal appearance. One of the details was "female."). Dnd can't (and shouldn't) market to all women for the same reason it can't (and shouldn't) market to all men: not everyone's interested in heroic fantasy.
What should be understood is that when it comes to selling dnd, gender is largely irrelevant - regardless of who they are, anyone even slightly interested in playing dnd is going to be so because of the same basic drives and imperatives. Whatever makes men want to play is going to make women want to play too.
This can extend to sex. If a majority (or significant minority) of the male players are drawn to the game because of sex appeal, then it's a fair bet that a majority (or significant minority) of female players are going to want the same thing (after all, there is something inherently sexy about action-adventure and fantasy). Unfortunately, for female gamers, that is something which Dnd fails to deliver. If they put a CMB on the cover, it might signal that the game is a lighthearted, over-the-top game of kinky fetish adventure (which appeals to women for exactly the same reasons it appeals to men). If this impression is ruined by opening the book and seeing that only half the characters fit that image (i.e. the female half, not separate factions), then a prospective buyer is turned off, potentially even if she would normally be interested in kinky fetish adventure (context is important).
In my opinion, even-handness is the key to marketing dnd to women. If the sort of man who plays is drawn by art sexualized to the point of innappropriateness, then the sort of woman who plays will be drawn by exactly the same sort of art. The inclusion of CMBs can be balanced by a couple of pictures of yaoi boys suggestively stabbing each other or polishing their magic wands while standing shirtless under waterfalls.
If, on the other hand, sex appeal is not an important motive (or even an active turn-off) to male gamers, then it's not unreasonable to assume the same of female gamers. If the primary draw for men is being able to control a player avatar in a shared fictional world of heroism and magic, then that is exactly what will draw women to the game, and the best way to market the game to women is to present it in such a way that it appears to deliver exactly that. What is the purpose of art depictions of male adventurers and how does that contrast with the depiction of female adventures? It doesn't really matter what the answer is, if you want to appeal to both sexes, the answer has to be the same.
A good example of a game that gets it is White Wolf's Vampire (caveat: I only have the two most recent editions). In it, a pretty, vain, manipulative vampire who uses seduction to stalk prey and feeds on blood with unsubtle erotic undertones is a unisex concept, as is the ugly as sin, corrupted, psychopathic creature of the night. Sexualized? Of course. Sexist? Not really, because the art and fiction of the book (for the most part, as far as I can remember) reinforce the fact that everyone is playing the same game. It doesn't really matter which direction it takes, if dnd wants to be a unisex product, it needs to do the same.
Seconded.
SrGrvsaLot, that's a big part of what I was trying to get at in my long (and admittedly meandering) post.
People keep talking about "how to get women to play" and "what women want," etc etc, as though Women is some monolithic single-minded entity. But the real issue is not "Why don't all women play D&D," but "Why don't the women who might enjoy D&D play D&D?"
Anyhow, I think that was incredibly well-said. So a round of applause for you from myself.
I think it's a misconception to link complaints about sex and nudity explictly to feminism.
I would agree, since there are plenty of other groups, many of which are the opposite of feminists, that would also complain about this. The word's use on these boards, however, usually tends to be more targetted at a specific set of members that share some opinion that the poster is addressing.
Personally, I think it's an empty question. There's nothing so universally adored by women that its addition will increase the game's appeal generally to such a large and diverse group.
This would be an error. Clearly, "women" is an acceptable demographic with purchasing tendencies that can be tracked, studied, and predicted. It's done all the time. That isn't to say that "women" can't or shouldn't be broken down further for this or that purpose. However, given that D&D has a small percentage of "women" who play even when you lump them all together, it makes a whole heck of a lot of sense to observe the market tendencies of the "women" group in an attempt to figure out why they avoid D&D in such larger numbers than the "men" group.
When one speaks of making the game "more appealing to women," the person is not claiming that the game will appeal more greatly to every individual woman with the proposed changes attached. Rather, the claim is that a larger percentage of women will be interested.
an artifact of a man's tendency to think of women as a deviation from the standard person (Personal Experience: I once asked a player to give me three details of a character's personal appearance. One of the details was "female.")
Your personal experience is an awful example if the parameters of the scenario are as I suspect. Was this player male? Did this player commonly play male characters? Is it common in your group for players to play same-gender characters? Do you always ask your players to give you three personal appearance details?
I won't call it overreaction yet, but I'll be surprised if at least a couple things I suspect aren't true.
What should be understood is that when it comes to selling dnd, gender is largely irrelevant - regardless of who they are, anyone even slightly interested in playing dnd is going to be so because of the same basic drives and imperatives. Whatever makes men want to play is going to make women want to play too.
This is downright false. What on earth gives you an idea like this? There is absolutely no guarantee that anything that makes men want to engage in some activity will also make women want to engage in the same activity. The only way you can make this sort of statement be the least bit passable is if you meant it as "whatever makes more men want to play is going to make at least some women want to play too," which will hold true commonly, but doubtfully always.
It's also an empty statement. It's like saying "more people will use a product if its quality improves." The only way the statement has meaning is if you meant it like I think you meant it, which is that the numbers of both genders who would be made to want to play would go up in relatively similar amounts (otherwise why even say it?), and that's demonstratably false with so many products (including every existing version of D&D).
I've got to be missing something here. Help me out.
If a majority (or significant minority) of the male players are drawn to the game because of sex appeal, then it's a fair bet that a majority (or significant minority) of female players are going to want the same thing (after all, there is something inherently sexy about action-adventure and fantasy).
Demonstratably false. There are countless examples of sex-based products that appeal extremely differently to men and women, including video porn, animated porn, erotic stories, romance novels, and more.
If this impression is ruined by opening the book and seeing that only half the characters fit that image (i.e. the female half, not separate factions), then a prospective buyer is turned off, potentially even if she would normally be interested in kinky fetish adventure (context is important).
Okay, now you're back into territory that reflects reality. However, I question its inclusion in this thread. I don't think anyone is arguing against this. I don't think anyone has ever argued against this in the history of Astrid's (random trolls popping in for 3 posts or less don't count as "arguments"). People have argued whether or not this is the case in various editions, books, pieces of artwork, genres, and so forth, but the idea you're putting forth here is rather widely accepted already.
In my opinion, even-handness is the key to marketing dnd to women.
It's a start, but this was done in 3E (everyone's ugly, everyone's dressed stupidly, character genders are split, gendered pronouns are split, mechanical effects due to gender were extremely rare). It did improve things, but if we want to improve things more, we need some additional steps. And I don't mean "making it even more even-handed." I don't think it's particularly possible to do so.
A good example of a game that gets it is White Wolf's Vampire (caveat: I only have the two most recent editions).
The World of Darkness books make use of far more than "even-handed depictions" to draw in female players. This has come up a few times in some other threads. The setting is one that has a higher percentage of female fans in general, and the rulebooks focus a lot more on the stories of those worlds than do D&D books.
That's the sort of step I'm talking about. You want to appeal to more women? You're probably going to have to change the game -- or at least change everything that's around the game.
I don't think a separate, extra-female gendered game needs to be cooked up. It might be worth a try, but I'm not convinced it would have much success. However, marketing to girls is a good idea. Start with some commercials featuring an all or mostly female group of young teen players, and air it in TV shows that girls watch.
Product placement actually in an existing show would be best, but, awesome as it would be, logistically I have a hard time seeing the Hannah Montanna D&D sleepover episode happening anytime soon.
Other then that, being sure to show a healthy number of girls in general advertisements is essential. Girls who already like shows like Avatar to me seem like an ideal market (much as any kids who like avatar are an ideal market, since the show already pushes episodic adventures, overarching narratives, and a PC party of heroes. Heck, if we were marketing 3e, it also already has the all-powerful spellcasters and the non-spellcasters who contribute more in a comic-relief sort of way).
In the end, the latter would probably be the most productive. Just be sure not to exclude girls in marketing aimed at fans of imaginative fantasy adventure, while hoping that imaginative fantasy adventure in general becomes more mainstream and more gender neutral. I can still hold onto my dream of that Hannah Montana episode, though.
I'm sure there are female doctors that know a whole lot more about male anatomy than I do. And female psychologists who could tell me more about how my own damn brain works than I could.
Yes, but that's not quite the same thing as telling you "what you want," is it?
It is impossible to make a gadget that appeals intrinsically to every individual, and there is a cost associated with creating variations. Producers balance this equation to arrive at the number of variations to produce and how to design those products to best appeal to the largest number of consumers.
Of course it's impossible. I'm just saying that I find things like using pink as a stand-in for "appeals to women" is a bit lazy. Pink phones appeal to people who like pink. I get sick of people assuming that I should like pink things because I am a woman.
I'll answer for myself: no, I do not. And I have never, despite being far from macho. Possibly because I've never had masculinists teach me how it's wrong, offensive, and treats me as a lesser person, but whatever.
Let's not get into this thing where we try to tell each other that our opinions aren't valid. I have my own opinions, and I have every right to hold those opinions. You may disagree with them, but the source of my opinions, whatever it may be (and you're making assumptions about what it may be), is really no concern of yours.
Oi. I think you watch too much television aimed towards the bottom rung; I've not seen the sorts of things you're talking about. YMMV.
And now we need to disparage my viewing habits? For what it's worth, the "She's like glass" lotion commercial was on during prime time, and it was on all the time. The radio commercial with the men talking about how young their wives looked is on several of the major local radio stations. The infomercial with the ******* husband is really just one of those "As seen on TV" ads. You know, the extra long commercials that pop up late at night when you're watching bad movies on the Sci-Fi Channel.
I don't think this is the case anymore. Women that get into "guy things" are celebrated as advancing the cause of womankind, breaking ceilings, standing up for themselves, and so forth. Men that get into "girl things" are still ostracized and mistreated, however.
I think you're wrong. Women in "guy things" still very often get treated differently than guys. The stigma is less overt, and they also tend to have supporters, but the problem is not dead.
My husband and I have both been in martial arts. I have found that there is a disturbing trend among guys (and the more macho the guy, of course, the more likely this is to occur), that when they find out I have taken Karate, they often say something along the lines of, "Oh yeah? Hit me." I have never seen my husband get this response.
And yes, the stigma for men involved in "girl things" is much more overt and pronounced. I won't deny that. But I also won't deny that women involved in "guy things" are still often treated differently than the men involved in those same "guy things."
I remember the Storm figures from the original X-Men TV series. They were always the most common ones available at the stores, and it's because almost nobody bought them.
That wasn't my experience. I never found one of those X-Men Evolution Storm figures. Not one. And I looked everywhere. To be honest, I didn't even know they existed until I looked it up on the internet. I did eventually find a Storm from some other action figure series, but even that one was the only one in the store.
Storm is one of the most recognizable and popular female X-Men characters. If they couldn't sell toys of her, why would they risk making a bunch more of other characters?
I couldn't find her anywhere, so that made it a little difficult for me to buy her.
Just basic marketing. Little boys (the primary audience of superhero action figures) still think little girls have cooties.
And how much of that is due to societally imposed gender ideas?
Look, all I'm saying is that there are a lot of forces at work in anything like this.
So yes, it is because girls decided, at large, not to watch the show / buy the characters. If they did, one would presume Storm would have sold a lot better, and then we'd have seen lots more X-Men female toys.
Again, I can't speak to how well the Storm figure sold, because I could never find it. You seem to have had a very different experience than me in that regard.
All I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's useful or particularly true to just point at the female half of the population and say things like, well, it's your own damn fault that you don't get female action figures, because you're not interested in having them.
They made one female action figure from X-Men Evolution. On her own, what good is she? Just as boys want a whole set of the male action figures from their favorite show, so that they can play out various scenarios, girls would like to have more than just one female action figure. Storm on her own is ok, sure, but she needs Jean Grey, Kitty Pryde, and Rogue to hang out with, and she needs Mystique and the Scarlet Witch to face off against.
The thing is, it seems to me that there's something of a vicious cycle at work. Girls don't buy action figures because there aren't enough female action figures available. Companies don't make female action figures because girls don't buy enough action figures.
Even considering that we'd be getting figures (for Marvel anyway) months after Target and Toys R' Us, we'd sell out of 1) the variants, and 2) the women.
Now, I'm not saying that it's only girls who buy them. In fact, I highly doubt it. Many female superheroes pick up a male following, even the ones that are popular with women.
(All of this is just derived from my own personal experiences of course, and therefore hardly authoritative.)
Note: Another potential reason for the women selling out is that they tend to make fewer figures of female characters. Therefore, a female figure is more likely to be a well-known figure. The few female figs that would sit around were usually not well-known. (ie, Kingdom Come Kid Flash)
I'm surprised that Solik is saying that female action figures don't sell. I don't know about the specific figure he's referring to, but in my experience managing the old comic book shop (we did a lot of action figures sales, both local and online), the female characters almost always sold out.
I think there's a difference between action figure lines specifically aimed at kids and those specifically aimed at the collector's market. Female figs in lines aimed toward collectors tend to sell well because such characters are more popular among the collector demographic, a demographic dominated by males older than their teens. On the other hand, lines aimed at kids contain less female figs because marketing shows that they dont sell as well, which is likely connected to marketing that tells the toy companies that not as many girls watch certain shows (x-men, he-man, GI joe, ect...) as boys.
I distinctly remember as a kid going to the toy store and seeing tons of left over female figures when i was looking for Spikor, Stinkor, Dragstor or whoever. Years later, when the He-man line was rejuvinated around 2000 or so, figures of the same female characters that were cloging up the shelves when i was 8 were selling at least well as any of the male figures. Why? Becuase older collectors are more interested in female figures that belong to lines catering to boys than actual boys are.
I think there's a difference between action figure lines specifically aimed at kids and those specifically aimed at the collector's market. Female figs in lines aimed toward collectors tend to sell well because such characters are more popular among the collector demographic, a demographic dominated by males older than their teens. On the other hand, lines aimed at kids contain less female figs because marketing shows that they dont sell as well, which is likely connected to marketing that tells the toy companies that not as many girls watch certain shows (x-men, he-man, GI joe, ect...) as boys.
I distinctly remember as a kid going to the toy store and seeing tons of left over female figures when i was looking for Spikor, Stinkor, Dragstor or whoever. Years later, when the He-man line was rejuvinated around 2000 or so, figures of the same female characters that were cloging up the shelves when i was 8 were selling at least well as any of the male figures. Why? Becuase older collectors are more interested in female figures that belong to lines catering to boys than actual boys are.
It's possible.
We sold to the collector's market. I assumed that the Storm figure in question was a part of the Marvel Legends series, which certainly has a "collector" following, especially for the "giant" figures that are assembled from collecting the entire set.
G.I. Joe is the same way. Are there any women in G.I. Joe? I don't even know.
I'm thinking of things that have a broader appeal. Avatar, X-Men, Justice League, Power Rangers, etc.
Furthermore, out of curiousity, do you have any evidence with which to back up your assertion that the people buying the new female He-Man figures are primarily nostalgic adults, or is that just a personal impression of what's going on?
We sold to the collector's market. I assumed that the Storm figure in question was a part of the Marvel Legends series, which certainly has a "collector" following, especially for the "giant" figures that are assembled from collecting the entire set.
I was actually primarily speaking about these. As I noted, it was originally something I was looking for because my kid sister was a fan of the X-Men Evolution cartoon series. So I was looking for the figures that would be most recognizable for her, with no real knowledge of the rest of the X-Men franchise.
I did run across a few women in the Marvel Legends series, but it seems to me that all of them either didn't exist in Evolution, or looked so different that they were largely unrecognizable as being the same character.
The Storm figure I eventually found was not from the Legends series. I tried to find it online just now, but no luck.
G.I. Joe is the same way. Are there any women in G.I. Joe? I don't even know.
Jinx. And that dark-haired chick who always hangs out with Destro.
I had both of those figures as a kid. (the small plastic ones)
Furthermore, out of curiousity, do you have any evidence with which to back up your assertion that the people buying the new female He-Man figures are primarily nostalgic adults, or is that just a personal impression of what's going on?
Well, the he-man community knew for a fact that the sales for the new line consisted primarily of nostalgic adults considering that when the line was eventually canceled mattel straight up told the folks at the he-man.org message boards that while the line did well among collectors, it just wasnt selling to the kids. Combine that with the fact that the female figs were at least as hard to find as any of the male ones (a sentiment echoed across the boards), despite the claim by mattel that they recieved an equal packing ratio, and it seems apparent that the female figs were fairly popular. There was also the phenomenon of the female figs going for a dollar or two more than many of the other figures on ebay back when the line was hot.
On a few occasions someone from mattel would pop onto the boards on he-man.org and talk about topics such as the packing ratios of certain figures. One of the things mentioned by someone at mattel is that female figures traditionally dont sell well in boys' action figure lines. The fact that they were selling well in the he-man line and that the line was selling better to collectors than to kids seemed to be pretty telling.
G.I. Joe is the same way. Are there any women in G.I. Joe? I don't even know.
GI Joe: Scarlett (Intelligence), Lady Jaye (Covert Ops), Cover Girl (Wolverine Pilot), and Jinx (Close Combat Expert).
COBRA: The Baroness (Intelligence), Zarana (Terrorist)
It's worth noting that Scarlett was one of the highest ranking and most competent members of the Joes, her combat skill only exceeded by Snake Eyes (and to be fair, he's a NINJA). Baroness is easily the most competant member of COBRA, and the organization simply wouldn't have survived if not for her.
Jinx. And that dark-haired chick who always hangs out with Destro.
I had both of those figures as a kid. (the small plastic ones)
You're thinking of Baroness, the woman who makes evil librarians in black catsuits look GOOD.
Also, on the Joe side, there were Scarlett and Lady Jaye, the prior of whom I greatly preferred as a kid, and probably contributed greatly to my current love of redheads. >_>
And GhostStepper, thank you for the clarification regarding the He-Man action figure sales.
Wasnt Jinx a male ninja?
http://www.myuselessknowledge.com/joe/jinx.html
Jinx was female. Stormshadow and Snake Eyes were male.
Also. . .
http://www.myuselessknowledge.com/joe/scarlett.html
http://www.myuselessknowledge.com/joe/ladyjaye.html
:D
Yes, but that's not quite the same thing as telling you "what you want," is it?
It's just a different field of study. Psychologists can tell me more about why I want things than I can. I read an article on this very recently, actually, about how most people are completely wrong about why they like certain things, and it described the experiments that proved it. It circulated the major news outlets for a little while.
Besides, a marketer could tell me "what men want" better than I could. Even if she were female.
I'm just saying that I find things like using pink as a stand-in for "appeals to women" is a bit lazy. Pink phones appeal to people who like pink. I get sick of people assuming that I should like pink things because I am a woman.
Well, okay, but do you see what you did there? You made this logical swap in your mind:
color it pink --> it appeals to more women
you are a woman --> you should like pink
You have to make an illogical step to do that. "You are a woman --> you have a higher probability of liking pink" would be correct, but it's a different statement.
I do understand that a lot of people make that illogical step in day-to-day life, which can be annoying. Teach people how to think; don't hate the marketers for the pink.
Let's not get into this thing where we try to tell each other that our opinions aren't valid.
Oi. See what you did there? I made a half-joking side comment regarding how feminist teaching often leads people to see things that aren't there, and you responded with a feminist tag-line about me somehow calling your opinions invalid? The irony is sort of painful. Didn't help your case any.
The difference between thinking someone is "disagreeing" with an opinion and thinking someone is calling an opinion "invalid" (bereft of explicit semantics) is almost entirely one of perspective.
And now we need to disparage my viewing habits?
Okay.
Well, assuming your descriptions are accurate, I'll agree that they're awful commercials.
I think you're wrong. Women in "guy things" still very often get treated differently than guys. The stigma is less overt, and they also tend to have supporters, but the problem is not dead.
I think you're changing the argument. It's not automatically wrong for a man to treat a woman differently than he treats another man. It's wrong for a man to treat a woman as inferior (if his sole reason is gender).
I have found that there is a disturbing trend among guys (and the more macho the guy, of course, the more likely this is to occur), that when they find out I have taken Karate, they often say something along the lines of, "Oh yeah? Hit me." I have never seen my husband get this response.
See, that's what I'm talking about. Lots of guys like a girl that can really kick ass. It's "hot."
Unless you mean that they were being sarcastic. In which case, the following is my response.
I took martial arts for a few years. As a general rule, the females were less capable; they won fewer tournaments and didn't do as well in sparring competitions. I don't know why that is, precisely, and I wasn't really a big fan of that fact (hey, I like girls that can kick ass too). Could have been that a lot of them were there for exercise and having fun with friends instead of focusing on building strength and kicking ass like a lot of the men (trying to leave open the option of societal influences here so I don't get flamed halfway to Minnesota).
Regardless, if lots of others have the same experience / perception, I can see some low expectations regarding your abilities, especially if you don't possess a muscular physique. I'm sure it's quite frustrating and sympathize with you on that, but in this case I think it's an understandable attitude, if not entirely fair to you.
I never found one of those X-Men Evolution Storm figures.
Evolution was not the original television series. I'm talking about the 1992 show (which was actually the second TV series, but whatever). I'm guessing the stores probably learned from the inventory problems they had after the '92 show and stocked far fewer of the Storm action figures this time around (I'll bet fewer were produced, too).
Sorry I wasn't clear before. I just Wiki'd it because I wasn't really sure if we were discussing the same thing or not. I've never seen this Evolution thing before.
And how much of that is due to societally imposed gender ideas?
Um, I have absolutely no idea. What on earth does that have to do with marketing? You market for reality, not your idealized world.
All I'm trying to say is that I don't think it's useful or particularly true to just point at the female half of the population and say things like, well, it's your own damn fault that you don't get female action figures, because you're not interested in having them.
Hey, I'm not placing any blame here.
Besides, it goes a lot farther than that. If ratings / polls / marketing data showed that more girls watched the show (and you better believe this info exists, because television advertisers care a lot about this), the producers would have manufactured more toys to appeal to those fans. There's no action figure Catch-22 here.
Oi. See what you did there? I made a half-joking side comment regarding how feminist teaching often leads people to see things that aren't there, and you responded with a feminist tag-line about me somehow calling your opinions invalid? The irony is sort of painful. Didn't help your case any.
If you did indeed mean it mostly in jest, then my apologies for getting defensive. It's the internet and all; we all know that it's sometimes hard to construe tone through text on a page, especially given how heated things have a tendency to get around here. It didn't help that someone else did recently come in with spouting exactly that opinion in all seriousness.
So yes, you set my back up. If that was not your intent, then I apologize for responding a bit nastily.
The difference between thinking someone is "disagreeing" with an opinion and thinking someone is calling an opinion "invalid" (bereft of explicit semantics) is almost entirely one of perspective.
I took you to be saying that my opinions are of no worth or value because they have been "taught" to me.
If I tell you that your opinion is stupid, that's awfully dismissive, and not particularly conducive to polite discussion. The assertion seemed to be that, if my opinions have been "taught" to me via feminist interaction, they're "stupid."
I don't mind you disagreeing with me. (I mean, sure, I'd love to change your mind and make you agree with me, but I don't really expect it to happen.) I'm here disagreeing with you because I think we're capable of having an interesting (perhaps even enlightening) conversation and maybe coming to a better understanding of each other. We may still disagree at the end of it, but it is my opinion that greater understanding leads to greater respect and other such hippie notions.
Well, assuming your descriptions are accurate, I'll agree that they're awful commercials.
Oh, they really are. Cringeworthy.
See, that's what I'm talking about. Lots of guys like a girl that can really kick ass. It's "hot."
But that's not really what I'm talking about. Yes, I've had plenty of guys think that it's "hot." But the primary motivation for the "Hit me" statement has always seemed to me to be more of an issue wherein they need me to hit them so that they can mentally reaffirm that I am actually not capable of hurting them. Not "Hit me because that is so totally hot." Maybe I'm wrong about that motivation, but that's the sense I've always gotten.
As a gamer, I also hear an awful lot of "girls suck at games" comments. When I'm terrible at Halo (which I'll readily admit that I am), it's because I'm a girl. When my husband sucks at Halo (which he also does) it's because he's no good at FPSs.
Evolution was not the original television series. I'm talking about the 1992 show (which was actually the second TV series, but whatever). I'm guessing the stores probably learned from the inventory problems they had after the '92 show and stocked far fewer of the Storm action figures this time around (I'll bet fewer were produced, too).
Sorry I wasn't clear before. I just Wiki'd it because I wasn't really sure if we were discussing the same thing or not. I've never seen this Evolution thing before.
Sorry for the confusion about which show we were discussing. Like I said, I used Evolution as an example because my little sister was very into it.
Perhaps that is why there were no Storm figures available. If so, it makes me quite sad. I'd like to think that a few things have changed since '92. I was a few years younger then than my sister is now, and I think there's been a definite shift in attitudes between then and now. I was teased as a kid for wanting to be a Ghostbuster (because that was "for boys"), but when my sister dressed up a soldier (a traditionally "male" role) for Halloween a few years back, I never heard a word about her being treated badly because of it. I do think we've progressed, and I'd like to think we live in a world where girls can play with and enjoy action figures. It seems that the world does not agree.
Um, I have absolutely no idea. What on earth does that have to do with marketing? You market for reality, not your idealized world.
This all started because I was responding to an assertion that "Girls don't play D&D because girls aren't interested in guy things." The base assumption seemed to be that girls just don't want to do "guy things," which seems patently false to me.
All I wanted to present was that there are a lot of factors at work keeping girls out of "guy things," and it's not really all just some inherent lack of interest.
I'm sorry that this went down a marketing road; I really didn't intend for it to do so, and I really have very little interest in the marketing discussions.
I mean, frankly, I don't care about the marketing reasons behind why there aren't many female action figures. I still think it sucks, and I want there to be female action figures. I know my want isn't magically going to make it happen, but there it is.
Hey, I'm not placing any blame here.
Perhaps not. The original post I was responding to did seem to be doing so, however.
I took you to be saying that my opinions are of no worth or value because they have been "taught" to me.
Nah. It's more like, once you're trained to look for stuff, it bothers you a lot more than it otherwise would have.
Show
As an example, a couple months ago I entered the housing market. I discovered that vinyl siding was often disallowed on homes in various development covenants, either on the front or at all, especially in the higher-priced areas. I learned that this meant that vinyl siding was something undesirable, even though it's functionally effective -- which means that the motivation is one of aesthetics.
Looking carefully at the vinyl siding, I started to agree. It didn't look as attractive as brick or stucco, now that I thought about it. And for that matter, front-facing garages are also uglier. Developers should turn them sideways so people can't see those garage doors when driving down the street!
Now, after only three months of considering these things, the sight of vinyl on the front or side of a home makes me frown, and front garages drive me absolutely nuts. None of these things bothered me four months ago in the least.
In fact, my parents had to remind me of something. I moved out of the home a few years ago (lived there through college, so sue me). A good while before I left, they had changed several parts of the house over to vinyl siding. I had no idea. Didn't remember it at all. Visiting home, I saw it, remembered it, and suddenly didn't like it!
All of this because I was basically informed that the stuff is undesirable.
That doesn't make my opinions regarding that invalid or worthless. It just means I never really put any brainpower on that topic whatsoever beforehand, completely and automatically dismissing it from thought. Never noticed it. Couldn't have even told you what it was.
Looking carefully at the vinyl siding, I started to agree. It didn't look as attractive as brick or stucco, now that I thought about it. And for that matter, front-facing garages are also uglier. Developers should turn them sideways so people can't see those garage doors when driving down the street!
Now, after only three months of considering these things, the sight of vinyl on the front or side of a home makes me frown, and front garages drive me absolutely nuts. None of these things bothered me four months ago in the least.
In fact, my parents had to remind me of something. I moved out of the home a few years ago (lived there through college, so sue me). A good while before I left, they had changed several parts of the house over to vinyl siding. I had no idea. Didn't remember it at all. Visiting home, I saw it, remembered it, and suddenly didn't like it!
All of this because I was basically informed that the stuff is undesirable.
That doesn't make my opinions regarding that invalid or worthless. It just means I never really put any brainpower on that topic whatsoever beforehand, completely and automatically dismissing it from thought. Never noticed it. Couldn't have even told you what it was.
Nah. It's more like, once you're trained to look for stuff, it bothers you a lot more than it otherwise would have.
Thanks for the clarification. I do understand what you're saying with the siding analogy. Anyhow, what I took exception to was apparently not what you intended to convey, and again, I apologize for getting all righteous. Nobody likes having their opinions dismissed out of hand. ;) Since that wasn't what you were doing, let's make peace. For the moment. :P
I've found that girls who are good at games are immensely popular among gamer guys in general.
Oh, absolutely. I've found the same thing.
All I'm saying is that when I happen to suck at some particular game (i.e., Halo), it's because I'm a girl and girls suck at games.
When I own your face at something (oh cripes, you know you play too much WoW when things like "own your face" start creeping into your everyday vocab), my gender has nothing to do with it. But you know, when I kick someone's arse with my warlock, it's not because "girls are totally awesome at playing warlocks."
My failings get blamed on my gender, but it's totally irrelevant to my strengths.
Still, it's going to take more than a decade to reverse gender tastes, even if they're 100% determined by society and society has changed a lot. And in the action figure market, you're going to need to see a pretty substantial shift in the taste of girls before it becomes profitable to market the toys to them.
Okay, a fair enough proposition, but the end result is pretty well the same. Those additional factors at work have the result of making fewer girls want to do those "guy things."
Sure, but if it's not just an innate lack of desire, and more the result of a lot of various factors, many of them societal, than it's something that can change.
I'm not saying I expect D&D or action figure manufacturers to change the world. Their primary motivation is money, not ideals.
But change can happen, and I think there are ways that companies like D&D and perhaps even action figure manufacturers can help to effect change. And surely they'd like to see change in the direction I'm talking about. The more customers they can acquire, the more money they get.
Hey, I'm with you on this.
Darn, now I'm feeling charitable with you again. Must go find somewhere else to disagree with Solik... :P