Tiny Epic Dungeons Brings the Crawl Down to Size

jason10mm wrote: ... if you think i somehow tolerate sexual harassment or assault out in the real world just because i don't get triggered by a minimally provocative game box drawing. I think we can disagree on this point without making that quantum leap.

I don't want you to be "triggered" about anything. What I'm saying is that you shouldn't neglect when women tell you that they are "triggered" - or rather that they experience something as problematc. Especially because it's not about that one rogue with boobs on display, but about the multitudes of rogues with boobs, warriors with sexy asses, coy looking wizards, or whatever. And not just about that, but also about the reaction women get when bringing up a thing like this, no matter how she does it. Every time it ends up with men telling them that they shouldn't care about it, that "actually" men are also sexualised in comic books, or that it's not TRUE SEXISM. Every time. So basically the option you have as a woman is to either accept status quo or be the target of a backlash.

n815e wrote: Your answer to representation of women in fantasy dungeon crawlers is that there are few historical women warriors that you know of to use as an example, and that the inclusion of women in dungeon crawlers is a bad decision, anyway?

My answer is clear. What interpretation of " I'm not knocking it, equal gender representation in a fantasy game is great." leads you to your conclusion?

The statement I quoted and responded to was "When every woman warrior looks nothing like a warrior, that’s a problem. It’s actually a big problem for the way women are thought about, and it impacts how women see themselves."

Go find me the depth and breath of visual examples of warrior women in the pre-modern era. It won't take long though you will have to sort through a metric ton of images that look just like TE Dungeons, a bunch more of awesome looking boob armor, and some of women wearing what is basically male pattern armor and, if they didn't look strikingly feminine (usually long flowing hair and youthful delicate facial features on the models), they would look exactly like a man in the same outfit. Thus rendering the artistic goal of showing women ready for close quarters combat in a medieval dungeon a challenging one that is often answered by exaggerated feminine features to include a voluptuous physique in magically skin tight metal armor. But it's fantasy, not reality, so it it's pretty widely tolerated. Even Ms. Hargrave liked/didn't object to the sculpt of rogue sophia vergara, she just didn't like the boob spotlight on the art (and misinterpreted the stance IMHO, the picture isn't of the character arching her back, the mini is posed normally).

So finding a historically accurate female warrior outfit is very difficult other than just a head swap. Joan of Arc has a few period(ish?) artist renderings with delicate ladylike face and hands in what is otherwise regular full plate. Who knows how accurate that is. If I didn't tell you it was Joan you'd never know. I don't think it is an outlandish or misogynistic statement to say that women have been virtually entirely absent on the battlefield in a front line, skirmisher, or irregular combat unit for almost all of recorded history. So ANY representation of them in the type of combat garb drawn from those periods is gonna be speculation with some almost assuredly ahistorical feminine stylings or just male armor with a woman's head grafted on. Again, I'm not sure why this is a controversial or offensive statement, it is just fact. Do some exist? Sure. But very few, if any, quality depictions of them in combat remain. Probably ceremonial armor are the best preserved examples until you go out of the european/middle east where there may be more stuff I'm not as familiar with.

So artists have few examples to work with, and fewer expectations to meet. Some folks here clearly disagree with me but I find a game that has all androgynous shapeless suits of armor for the characters to be lacking in thematic impact compared to ones that exhibit sexual dimorphism in the war garb though it can be taken too far. For a more strict historical feel I have to opposite opinion (though it feels VERY WIERD to kill a viking in Assassins Creed:Valhalla and hear a female scream of pain. They don't have gendered armor in that game and women warriors are everywhere).

Anyway, hope that clears up that misunderstanding.

ChristopherMD wrote: jason10mm being against women standing up for themselves is nothing new here .

Once again, you are barking up the wrong tree when you try to insinuate that my position on one issue reflects my position on other issues. But it's ok, my internal validation does not require your approval.

But you are ABSOLUTELY FUCKING WRONG if you think I am sexist in a professional or personal capacity outside of these discussions on a game forum. You just are. You are making broad conclusions based on specific discussions. It's ok if you feel that way about me personally, but it is an incorrect generalization to make.

BTW, how did that whole thing shake out anyway? Did that guy just ghost or is he still kicking around? I guess covid makes it hard to tell.

I feel pretty good about my judgment of you.

Hi, Jason.

Thanks for that extensive clearing up of your strict adherence to historical accuracy in fantasy games.

jason10mm wrote:

ChristopherMD wrote: jason10mm being against women standing up for themselves is nothing new here .

But you are ABSOLUTELY FUCKING WRONG if you think I am sexist in a professional or personal capacity outside of these discussions on a game forum. You just are. You are making broad conclusions based on specific discussions. It's ok if you feel that way about me personally, but it is an incorrect generalization to make.

LOL, dude, you are hilarious. You don't get to be very obviously and casually sexist for a whole thread, and then freak out the moment you feel like someone is insinuating you're sexist. It's called accountability for your actions, sorry if people see you as you present yourself as not as you imagine yourself to be. If you don't want to be labeled a sexist I'd start with actually trying to listen to the concerns of women instead of jumping to dismiss them.

Here are just a few ways your comments are can be taken a sexist. Maybe with one or two of them you could claim it's a misunderstanding, but when taken together they don't paint you as a feminist by any means:
1. You immediately dismiss the concern of the woman who brought, asking "What's the controversy?" even though is clearly explained, as if her opinion doesn't matter, and later on define her as just "some lady."
2. You actually try to blame her, saying she's partially responsible for the fallout just for voicing her concern.
3. You claim that if they don't retain their appeal to the adolescent male then the designs will be "indistinguishable in the mini, dull on the card, and only appealing to a vocal minority," as if the only way to distinguish a female character is by sexualizing her.
4. You claim to be the target audience that you previously defined as appealing to the adolescent male - I'm not sure this is something you want to go around flaunting if you're trying to prove you're not sexist
5. You claim that it's very difficult to find examples of TRUE SEXISM in board games, despite it being explained to you very clearly why this example is actually sexist, put forth by an actual woman who has been the subject of it.
6. You claim sexualizing the female characters in these games just makes them "more appealing" and there's nothing inherently wrong with that.

OMFG “it’s just fantasy”...........OK, so why then does it have to just be MALE FANTASY and why the FUCK, since it’s “just fantasy” does it matter if there are not “billions” of historical warrior women? Can things never change? Must we always fall on the old “well, history says...” argument which has absolutely zero bearing on this discussion? You literally argued for T&A on a fantasy board game box based on historical precedence!

Jason, maybe you need to back down off this hill my dude.

Right. If it's just fantasy, why does it matter whether there are historical examples to draw from or not? It's fantasy, right? Dragons, orcs, fireballs, all that shit. None of that stuff existed in recorded history, either, and that's acceptable but a woman appearing in appropriate clothing/armor/stance/body shape somehow isn't?

BTW, as soon as I saw your "no examples" complaint, I thought of Boudicca, Tomoe Gozen, and Mai Bhago; three female warriors from three radically different cultures and all of them with visual representations available on the Interwebs and even in real life.

The first thing you should do when you find yourself in a hole is stop digging.

Heh heh, I've said my piece and my surrender, I'm done.

Though I could go on and on, particularly about the celts and Boudica in particular but "Coming to America 2" is on so I'm checking out.

mads b. wrote: Seriously, Jason, that you even dare to be the arbiter of what constitues REAL SEXISM is beyond belief. You claim that you have read what Hargrave wrote, but have you? Really? And have you maybe also read what hundreds of thousands of women have shared these past years on hashtags such as #metoo and #yesALLwomen? Have you? Really?

You can get men to read as much of this stuff and as thoroughly as you like. But they won't understand it or make a jot of difference to them until they've understood and accepted that they're blinkered because they were bought up in a patriarchal society that blinds them to women's views.

That's privilege. And it's pernicious because the very thing that keeps men ignorant of the struggles women face daily also stops them from recognising that privilege for what it is. Breaking that cycle is hard, even for guys who want to be onside (it's the root of "not all men"), let alone those who prefer to revel in their ignorance.

FWIW, this essay played a big part in taking my blinkers off:
sindeloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/13/37/