dr-archeville:

pixiebutterandjelly:

I literally just read somebody suggesting that the “iron man” in all new all differen avengers van’t be pepper potts because the armor has no boobs….what ._.

But Rose, how can fans possibly believe it’s a G I R L in there if the suit doesn’t have BIG IRON TITTIES?! [/sarcasm]

In case anyone wondered what All-New All-Different Avengers is:

image

Regardless of who this particular Iron Man is supposed to be, Pepper Potts rocks the boobless Iron Man suit just fine. Ask Stjepan Sejic (seems this artwork was deleted from dA. Here’s it’s archive.com copy).

~Ozzie

People really need to stop playing their faith in boobcups. They’re not necessary if you have boobs, and by now everyone should know that the boobplate does not guarantee boobs underneath:

image
image

– wincenworks

more on Iron Boobs | more on boobplates

edit: found another post about gendering Iron Man’s suit!

themystisk:

I would just like to point out that WotC have addressed the state of dress that characters in the art for their cards are in, and for all of their other merchandise for that matter. They simply commission an artist to draw, say “Elf rogue in cityscape”, that the artist then hands them a female in skimpy leather armor, isn’t their fault. Essentially, they give the artists pretty free reins, and if they manage to fit the description given, it usually goes through. So blame the artists, not WotC.

I assume you’re referring to this blather where Matt Cavotta tried to explain that he didn’t want to be responsible for his decisions are Creative Lead and basically didn’t want to do his job (which is probably why he isn’t the creative lead anywhere anymore).  He also admits (Myth #5) that he doesn’t speak for Wizards of the Coast (WotC), just himself.

If you actually read it though, there’s a few very damning points here and a lot of strawmanning and standard issue rhetoric while throwing his fellow artists under the bus.  See how he keeps referencing the style guide and saying “Well they’re not doing anything they’re not allowed to… creative freedom!”

Style guides are not brief little guidelines with just a few bullet points and “be creative” in bold letters, they’re actually quite carefully constructed and complicated documents and contain many restrictions. 

image

Some examples:

  • Avoid making things look high-tech or sci-fi. Magic stretches the definition of “fantasy,” but there are limits.
  • Don’t use real-world letters or symbols. This includes religious symbols such as crosses and ankhs.
  • Keep gore at a PG-13 level.
  • Because we sell Magic cards in China, please avoid prominently representing human skulls or full skeletons.

And of course:

  • Make an effort to illustrate a variety of races, genders, ages, and body types.
  • Feel free to paint beautiful women, as long as they’re shown kicking ass. No damsels in distress. No ridiculously exaggerated breasts. No nudity.
  • Despite all the do’s and don’ts, we want you to have fun! If you want to experiment or bend a rule, just run your idea by the art director.
image

See, art directors and their bosses are supposed to supplement guides and provide guidance to artists so that the artist creates the best possible product for the company and the artist themselves.  It helps to fix mistakes and smooth out issues, this one was an issue in 2005 when Matt made his statement and it’s continued to be one.

Now, there are several things that WotC can and should have done before 2005 to fix this.  By could I mean both as part of being a responsible company and in terms of trying to maintain brand image and profits:

  • Amend the standard style guide to be more specific about the depictions of women
  • Tell the art directors, creative leads and other creative staff to be vigilant about this issue and to pro-actively provide guidance to the contracted artists
  • Include a separate document in the artist package stating their concerns and expectations specifically depictions of female characters
image

WotC easily had the infrastructure to do this by 2000 – I know this because I worked for WotC in the early 2000s (up until July 2005 in fact) as an online chat room moderator and even in this minor role I had to sign an NDA, memorize pages of regulations and undergo supervised training.  When I left, they were not slowing down on that in the slightest.

This has nothing to do with Wizards of the Coast wanting to be a cool relaxed company, or offer artist freedom or being somehow unable to make decisions on what they do and don’t publish – it’s that they simply haven’t cared to properly address this issue and set high standards for things other than being viable to sell in China and Walmart.

image

They publish things, they are responsible for the what they publish. It’s that simple. They have more power than the artists over what gets published because they have the ability to refuse, crop or edit submitted artwork – artists, on the other hand, can only get published if they meet the publisher’s expectations… and then it might get cropped or edited.

– wincenworks

Also, themystisk​, even if the nonsense you wrote somehow WAS true, it would still prove our point:

  • It would mean that Wizards of the Coast is completely irresponsible with how they conduct art commissions (because apparently they don’t care at all about what artwork is produced with their money). Such a sound business practice!
  • It would also mean that fantasy artists are by default all pervy and whenever asked to draw anything remotely female, they deliver “the sexy”, even when not asked for sexyness specifically.

Either way, it’s part of a larger problem with media’s and society’s expectations towards women. Blaming random bad artists for it is just a disingenuous, oversimplified answer and offers no solutions to the issue.

~Ozzie

witchyjoshy:

straight boys: Silly feminists, it’s okay for women to be depicted with little to no armor. Look at Conan, he’s totally the same thing!

straight boys: *playing FF12* Vaan, put on a damn shirt you’RE MAKING ME FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE 

straight boys: *reacting to new male protagonist’s skimpy armor* Squeenix pls stop 

straight boys: But yeah, Conan. Totally the same thing. And you don’t see us complaining!

image

Perfect summary of this "controversy".

~Ozzie

“Hey I wonder what’s happening on the Bioware forums!”

ellorgast:

image

image

image

image

Can’t believe I happened to have such perfect reaction pic to this.

Also: hey, just another evidence that people who refer to women as “females” are misogynist douchebags who lost contact with reality and their opinions should be ignored.
Long-time BABD followers would remember that I am definitely not okay with using “female” as a noun in reference to a person.

~Ozzie

Oh noes! A world with lots of capable and important women with all kinds of personalities, and their outfits express those personalities and even the male gazey outfit was toned down!

coles-silly-hat:    sketchys:    Best quote from Dragon Age: Inquisition.    *whips tears* that’s so deep and wise      It’s why she was my choice for the top job.

How could Andraste allow such a thing?

– wincenworks

We need to talk

Well we don’t really, these concerns are covered in the FAQ but since we’re still getting the outrage for our noble work – let’s have some fun!

Bring out contestant number one! Sorry, I already forgot your name!

image

image

Firstly I (the straight cis man known as wincenworks) love the assumption that it’s only women who are enjoying our Sexy Male Armor Fridays because a fairly hefty proportion of them are made by and for gay or otherwise queer men.  It actually takes quite a bit of work to find them even on video game mod sites and art sites.

Meanwhile all I have to do to see women being objectified is open up Steam or visit my local comic book shop.  It’s everywhere. In everything. It’s the predominant image of heroines and strong female characters.

image

So to answer your question, when we ever start to reach a reality where male characters aren’t considered worthwhile unless they conform to a very narrow beauty standard then we can start worrying about objectification of men.  If that ever happens and isn’t immediately backpedaled over.

And now for our second concerned citizen! Sorry I forgot who you are too.

image

I can only assume this refers to one or more of the many “empowered” jokes that we make both on sexy male armor posts and others.  This because the fallacy that it is somehow a power fantasy for women to conform to ridiculously demanding and implausible beauty standards.

High heels, thongs, push-up bras the flaunt cleavage, bared belly buttons and bedroom eyes often aren’t even used to to signal heightened sexuality in a female character – they’re just there as some sort of a “be sexy so boys will like you, remember you’re empowered” uniform. The top priority is still making straight men feel the character is made for them in particular.

Various media love spins of trying to excuse hypersexualizing women such as weaponized femininity,  "she’s so powerful“ and a whole bunch of other things.  But very rarely does it have anything to do female characters actually having power, doing what they want and not conforming to society’s demanding expectations.

image

James Bond gets to be powerful, sexy and use his sexual appeal to get what he wants too.  But he also gets to do it while wearing awesome suits,having a charming personality and doing lots of things just because he wants to (as well as his super cool job).  Not many female characters get this kind of opportunity.

So really it’s not that there’s not a relationship between sex and power, it’s just there’s a very limited relationship between hypersexualized female armor and power.

– wincenworks