|
2 years ago ::
May 08, 2011 - 1:51PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2009
|
Hello. Does anyone else agree with me that a lot of card art of women on Magic cards is unnecessarily sexualized? There are many cards with art of women wearing modest or at least normal clothing, and then there are many cards featuring women who are barely wearing anything or who are wearing very revealing clothing. I find it inappropriate and I wish it wasn't the case. I wonder if anyone on the team that makes Magic considers this a serious issue or not as well, or if there are any advocates on the team for less sexual depictions of women. It bothers me quite a bit, and I even refuse to use some cards due to their artwork, which is very annoying if the card would fit into my deck. I'm just off of my yearly hiatus from Magic (three months where my volleyball league plays on Fridays so I can't attend FNM) and I am seriously considering dropping Magic as this issue is starting to grind on me. I've been ignoring the issue for a long time and it is bothering me more and more. And it doesn't help that when I came back to the Daily Magic site for the first time in awhile I was confronted with several new cards from New Phyrexia featuring women with barely covered breasts and too much exposed skin. I love Magic art and I love playing Magic, but if I have to put up with this issue that bothers me so much, I might just stick to my Wednesday night Monsterpocalypse games. Then again, I'm also thinking of sticking with Magic and refusing to play those cards and advocating for this issue from the inside. I'm thinking of writing an e-mail to some of the Magic team members, but would really like to run this by a forum first to see what kind of opinions on this issue are out there. So, what are your opinions? Agree, disagree, or don't care, I'd like to hear everything. Thanks!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 08, 2011 - 2:35PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2008
|
I wouldn't consider it an issue worthy of quitting, especially when Magic tends to be one of the most progressive fantasy art users out there (check out 4e D&D art, for example--it tends to be significantly worse). And I wouldn't consider it so much a problem of sexualization as it is a problem of just women being sexualized in this way, and just a certain body type that tends to get the treatment. I wouldn't mind it if it was an equal and more inclusive thing.
But I agree that it's definitely a problem, even if it isn't one particular to Magic. It's kind of a stupid cliche and one that it's worth ditching in Fantasy art. I think we've matured culturally enough to get beyond it, and Magic art is pushing the envelope in so many other ways, I feel like this is a natural thing to consider and change.
I think a lot of the people over in Flavor & Storylines would tend to agree with us, also--we've had a number of discussions before about women in Magic, and generally the conclusion was that Magic is doing pretty damn well, all things considered, but that there are a lot of improvements that could still be made. To some extent, I think we've consciously or unconsciously worked to correct some of these imbalances through the Expanded Multiverse, but that's all characters rather than art (well... for now), so I guess it doesn't help your problem too much.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 08, 2011 - 4:20PM
#3
|
|
|
yo
wizards has already shown they worry about it(more than they should, imo).
I think thats a "potential" problem, for different reasons than both of you...it is not "inappropriate" because for more skin that has been exposed, nothing came even close to a bikini, and there is nothing inappropriate in a bikini.The body shape thing is just a matter of female beauty.Besides that, it is not a game for kids anyway.The real problem is making that a -necessity- or marketing strategy , and putting it above the objective of immersion and general beauty, like happens with comic art(nothing against comics, but it would be sad if the magic art tradition ended this way).But Im not seeing that happening yet.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 08, 2011 - 5:42PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Feb 28, 2008
|
One of the problems right now is that Mirrodin is particularily bad about this - almost every humanoid is barely wearing anything. And even then, New Phyrexia is an improvement. There's only a handful of sexualized women here. To me it looks like: Arm with  Aether  , which is awful all around. Glissa's Scorn  Maul Splicer  , though I think the sensuality enhances this art, as her feelings for the monstrous golems makes it creepier. Viridian Betrayers  I guess? I don't know, maybe I'm missing something, but New Phyrexia seems particularly good about not sexualizing women - the iconic female character of the set, Melira, is dressed more sensibly than most other characters in fiction, and she certainly isn't sexualized.
Micorku's World Bits - A Vorthos writing about various creative topics. Updates sporadically Iroas - The world needs heroes - will you answer the call? There is also an RPG that is in Pre-Alpha stage.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 08, 2011 - 6:45PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 28, 2009
|
Keeper- Yeah, I would agree that Magic is pretty progressive in a way considering that a high percentage of the women in its art are dressed decently, and there are many games were almost every women is barely wearing anything. I agree that the "scantily clad woman" is a fantasy art cliche, and one worth ditching. I really feel like it subtracts from the quality of the art. I'd also like to say I totally agree that Magic art is pushing the envelope, something I should have said more about in my original post. I'm blown away by the quality of the art on card after card and in set after set, it's truly amazing.
Evan- You are right that Wizards does seem to care about women's issues. They do a great job with things like keeping pronouns gender neutral and being open to female players, and having powerful female characters that aren't stereotypes. I would disagree with you that the art isn't as revealing as a bikini. Take a look at the Glissa's Scorn link in Micorku's post for a quick and easy example. I would say that many cards feature outfits that are just as revealing if not more so than a bikini. I also agree that it could be worse, like you said, if it became Wizard's main marketing strategy or signature style.
Micorku- Yeah, you are right about Mirrodin. I know these people have metal on their bodies, so they might not need to wear as much armor as other Magic races, but that doesn't mean they wouldn't wear clothes. Maybe New Phyrexia isn't as bad as I thought, I haven't really had a chance to look through the whole set, I just saw a few images on the site that I wasn't thrilled with.
Also, as for the sensuality enhancing the theme in Maul Splicer, there certainly are a few cards where the sexuality is built into the flavor of the card. The vampires in Zendikar come to mind, as they are describe as decadant and sexual in their flavor. Then you see the art and it fits. It still bothers me though, and I wish Magc would just stay away from those themes, but it is at least a little better than when the flavor says these are just normal warriors and then you see the art and they are barely wearing anything. As for Melira, I would disagree with you. It looks to me like she's wearing a loincloth and a small piece of fabric for a top. Maybe this is partially for flavor reasons to show that she doesn't have any metal skin, but still, I think it's pretty revealing.
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 08, 2011 - 6:48PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2008
|
Yeah, Mirrodin is definitely pretty bad... which is one of the many, many things that I've always hated about the designs for the plane. Half the regions of Mirrodin include common flora that can cut you to shreds as soon as you touch it, and yet everyone wanders around mostly naked. It's just silly!
New Phyrexia is definitely an improvement. It's good, too, because overly sexualizing people in the midst of a genocide would be a bit of a mood killer, to say the least...
And, evanodorney, you're missing the point of why it would be inappropriate. It's inappropriate because it's exploitive and disrespectful, not because of... whatever you were trying to say.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 08, 2011 - 6:52PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
Viridian Betrayers I guess?
The guy on that is also idealized and nearly naked.
Know your audience: Magic's customer base heavilly leans towards teenage boys and gamer geeks. Teenage boys and gamer geeks like to look at boobs.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 08, 2011 - 6:55PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Aug 28, 2005
|
Teenage boys and gamer geeks like to look at boobs.
Only the straight ones. 
Anyway, I don't buy the argument of target audience here. It's one thing to cater to a target audience, sure, but to cater to their desires to the point that those outside of the target audience feel alienated is quite another. Furthermore, there's no particular reason why men specifically should be the target audience here, so the argument holds even less water.
Now, I'm certainly not against sexual objectification, but I am against limited representations. In other words, it's fine to have sexually idealized and objectified women as long as that's not all that there is. Providing multiple alternative representations that are no so narrowly defined and can appeal to a broader variety of people is the wiser decision on multiple levels, including economically. Include images of powerful and sensibly dressed women the same way that images are already included of powerful and sensibly dressed men and also include images of idealized and scantily clad men the same way that images are already included of idealized and scantily clad women, and you're set! There's no reason for us to need to want to hide sexuality, but there's very good reason not to be limited to sexuality.
Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TMSpeaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 08, 2011 - 7:27PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Dec 12, 2008
|
Teenage boys and gamer geeks like to look at boobs.
Only the straight ones.
Anyway, I don't buy the argument of target audience here. It's one thing to cater to a target audience, sure, but to cater to their desires to the point that those outside of the target audience feel alienated is quite another. Furthermore, there's no particular reason why men specifically should be the target audience here, so the argument holds even less water.
Now, I'm certainly not against sexual objectification, but I am against limited representations. In other words, it's fine to have sexually idealized and objectified women as long as that's not all that there is. Providing multiple alternative representations that are no so narrowly defined and can appeal to a broader variety of people is the wiser decision on multiple levels, including economically. Include images of powerful and sensibly dressed women the same way that images are already included of powerful and sensibly dressed men and also include images of idealized and scantily clad men the same way that images are already included of idealized and scantily clad women, and you're set! There's no reason for us to need to want to hide sexuality, but there's very good reason not to be limited to sexuality.
 This. All of this. Not sure I would consider objectification a good thing, exactly, but I think we're just using different conceptual definitions, and definition fights are totally boring, so yeah, I definitely agree with this. Very well said.
Also, incidentally, I loved Koth's shirtless card art. Just saying. He can have my periphery demographic any day.
|
|
|
|
2 years ago ::
May 08, 2011 - 7:33PM
#10
|
|
|
war
hunger
poverty
unemployment
over population
the ozone effect
over crowding in america's prisons
poor parenting
our school system
ageism
.....and womens portayal in magic cards are whats bothering you?????
seriously dude-not to rain on your parade but there are so many more important things in life, yet you state many times that it bothers you SO MUCH that you are considering quitting the game-it just doesnt seem that important-so ok quit the game-i am sure hasbro/wizards wont mind one person quitting over the 90% or so of guys that like seeing pretty women in the cards, or just dont care-
are you very religous or something? it always amazes me that the people that complain about what women are wearing in magic cards, never mention the gratuitous violence in the cards-so its ok to have a monster chewing a head off or someones flesh melting off or the long debated pentacles that were supposed to be "demonic" in the old unholy strength, but lord forbid you show a woman wearing a sexy outfit.
really??????????????????????????
|
|
|
