In feminist theory, the Male Gaze expresses an asymmetric (unequal) power relationship, between viewer and viewed, gazer and gazed, i.e. man imposes his unwanted (objectifying) gaze upon woman. Second Wave feminists argue that whether or not women welcome the gaze, they might merely be conforming to the hegemonic norms established to benefit the interests of men — thus underscoring the power of the male gaze to reduce a person (man or woman) to an object.
Lamentations of the Flame Princess är ett old school renaissancerollspel vars författare jag fram till idag respekterade för hans mycket intressanta spel. Icke så längre. I ett blogginlägg pratar Raggi IV om hur han valt bilder till sitt rollspel och framhåller upprepade gånger hur löjligt det är att tänka på genus, hur fånigt det där att behöva tänka på en publik som inte ens kommer att läsa hans spel, medan jag sitter här bredvid och tänker “läste jag precis det där jag läste nyss? Har jag verkligen stöttat den här personen med mina pengar? Är jag dum i huvudet?”
Det som stör mig mest är att Raggi IV inte verkar förstå den problematik som kommer med objektifiering av personer, men främst den objektifiering som rör kvinnor.
Enligt en undersökning från University of Conneticut så påverkas framförallt personer av det kvinnliga könet negativt av att bli objektifierade.
The study, published this month in the journal Psychological Science, explains that our culture has so taught women that they’re judged on appearance that they’ve come to evaluate themselves that way, ultimately self-objectifying.
Det är alltså inte bara en fråga om individen, även om jag självklart inte med det här vill säga till de modeller som ställer upp för den här typen av konst att de inte har rätt att göra vad fan de vill med sina kroppar. Det som i första hand oroar mig med den kultur som finns runt så kallad cheesecake art i fantasysammanhang är så klart att de som vill ha den typen av konst letar efter modeller och konstnärer som ställer upp på och tillverkar den typen av konst eftersom det inom rollspelsvärlden (och även spelvärlden) på något sätt är helt självklart att konsten skall se ut sådan. Raggi IV säger det själv.
You think about what you want the art to say, and then you say it. There might be specific points of screwing around with expectations but by and large if you want to get an idea across you need to do it in a way that people will instinctively understand.
Det jag fäster mig vid särskilt är hans uttryck “you think about what you want the art to say, and then you say it”. Vad jag förstår av Raggis inlägg så vill han alltså ha sagt att kvinnokroppar är objekt, och fina att se på. De funkar också som offer:
Women are just better at some things than men and being a sympathetic victim is one of them. Yes, it can be taken too far when it becomes overdone, a shortcut rather than shorthand.
Det Raggi IV gör i hela inlägget är dels att:
1. använda ord som “silly”, “ridiculous”, “stupid” om de av oss som protesterar mot den typen av objektifierande som Raggi uppenbarligen försvarar med sin text genom att påstå att “det bara är konst”, och de som ställer upp på det “tycker om att bli betraktade som vackra” (fast det han egentligen säger om vi skall kolla ordval är att de tycker om att bli betraktade som sexuella objekt). Att tycka något annat är rent ut sagt störtlöjligt och vi som gör det, vi är bara fåniga, och vi köper heller inte hans produkt. Så varför skall han bry sig om oss?* Vi har säkert ingen självdistans eller humor ändå.
2. att försvara sitt val av bilder, både ur ett våldsperspektiv och ur ett objektifieringsperspektiv, genom det allerstädes i sådana här sammanhang närvarande “tell it like it is” och “jag struntar i pk-maffian” attityden som förr eller senare alltid dyker upp i diskussioner runt könsroller och misogyni.
Methink the lady doth protest too much.
Det jag måste fråga mig är varför Raggi IV anser att det är så viktigt att försvara sitt val av bilder? Kanske beror det på det här – “While my world view certainly influences what I publish, what I publish isn’t a simple reflection of my world view so stop pretending that it is. There’s fantasy and there’s reality and part of the point of fantasy is the imagining and exploring of things that one would never even want to exist in real life.
Det är lite som kvinnosynen i Tékumel. Slavkvinnor – boskap, samma ord för båda. Våldtäkt som ett sätt att tysta upproriska kvinnor, och total avsaknad av sexualitet för de kvinnor som vill göra något annat än det typiskt kvinnliga. Celibat. Bli en okönad varelse för att bli mer än en kvinna. Avsäg dig din sexualitet för att bli en människa. Det här har förvisso inte så mycket med Lamentation of the Flame Princess att göra förutom att det är en syn på kvinnor som informerar stora delar av fantasyrollspelskulturen. På precis samma sätt som verk av Robert E Howard och J.R.R. Tolkien påverkar kvinnosynen i fantasy, och om ni läst något av dem så förstår ni mig kanske när jag säger att den är rent ut sagt anskrämlig.
Att den här typen av kvinnoporträtt finns betyder inte att jag tror att vare sig Tékumel- eller LotFP-spelare helt plötsligt skulle ge sig ut och våldta kvinnor. Men objektifiering kan leda till sexuellt våld.**, det kan leda till att kvinnor ställer orimligt höga krav på sig själva att vara kroppsligen perfekta vilket leder till ätstörningar och annan problematik. Och det leder definitivt till att färre kvinnor kommer in i rollspelshobbyn.
Det som fick mig att reagera starkast i Raggis långa bloggpost är dock ordvalet. Hela bloggposten har hittills handlat om vackra kvinnor. Mannen skriver “And not only to [sic!] men and women want to look beautiful, they want to look at beautiful things.”
Beautiful things. Vackra saker. Kvinnor är vackra saker att titta på.
Den kärlekshistoria jag upplevde när jag först tittade igenom och läste Lamentations of the Flame Princess är över. För min del är det uppenbart att dess författare inte har någon som helst respekt för mig som kvinna eller som rollspelare. Kan du tro att jag har spenderat min tid och mina pengar på att köpa och läsa material som inte respekterar mig?
Det är någonstans här jag vill poängtera att det förmodligen inte bara är jag som känner på det här viset, att det finns kvinnor överallt som gärna skulle vilja spela rollspel, men som blir bortstötta av den attityd författare som Raggi IV uppvisar mot oss, den brist på respekt vi måste leva med och den objektifiering kvinnor blir utsatta för i gamersammanhang.
Att bry sig om hur ena halvan av mänskligheten representeras i rollspelsböcker är uppenbarligen löjligt och korkat. Nå. Om det är löjligt och korkat, så vill jag påpeka att jag inte längre tänker lägga mina pengar på något så löjligt och korkat som Lamentations of the Flame Princess.
__________________________________
*”Can you believe I’ve spent time worrying about appeasing those that won’t give two shits about my game no matter what I do?”
**Consequences of Objectification
The consequences of objectification are not easy to measure. There is no way to link dangerous behaviors such as eating disorders or crimes such as rape directly to media objectification– and it would be irresponsible and inaccurate to do so. However, we live in a world filled with the objectification of women, and this objectification contributes to social problems. These problems include:
• Sexual violence and other violence against women. When women are portrayed as objects without subjectivity, it may be easier for some to justify violence against them. If a woman is just a thing to be looked at, her feelings and concerns might seem less important.
• Eating disorders and negative self image. The enormous pressure that young girls and women feel to live up to an unrealistic image is fueled by images that suggest the importance of being a beautiful object.
• Backlash. As theorists such as Jean Kilbourne [1] and Susan Faludi [2] have argued, the influx of objectified images of women have occurred at the same time that women have gained other kinds of power in society, serving as a backlash to keep women from becoming too powerful
• Pressure on teens and young women to dress and behave more sexually.
In conclusion, imagine a table. A table is a collection of molecules– truly an object. It does not care if you look at it, compare it negatively to other tables, pick it up, or even damage it. a woman, however, is both an object and a subject. Like a table, she is a collection of molecules that can be looked at or damaged– but unlike a table, she cares. When society reduces human beings to the status of tables, the humans are bound to get hurt.
(Källa)
Läs även andra bloggares åsikter om Lamentations of the Flame Princess, spelkultur, rollspel
2010-12-02 at 13:40
Reading this, I feel a fundamental disconnect happening because of things like this (what you say you react strongest to):
I say “And not only do men and women want to look beautiful, they want to look at beautiful things.” I see these as equal things. Men and women wanting to look at beautiful men and women both. We’re not discussing the same thing if you take a place where I specifically say “men and women” and you cut out the men in your response to it and then talk about how awful it is to think about women that way.
And then to build on that to say, “För min del är det uppenbart att dess författare inte har någon som helst respekt för mig som kvinna eller som rollspelare.” I obviously don’t agree with that.
I want to get rid of as many traces of D&D-ish “Here’s a character posing!” as I can this time around. Having people in danger and generally not having a good time. I want women represented in the art. The combination is trouble. I really do believe that one can not portray men and women equally in art – if the portrayal is negative – without catching hell for it. Whether that is true or merely paranoia on my part, that’s what led to my blog post.
On one hand I’m emailing different artists to get breasts shrunk to reasonable levels and making sure there’s a woman in an adventuring party and asking that cleavage be covered up in a situation where having it doesn’t make sense while on the other hand sitting here worried about how I’m going to be judged because I’m going to have women meet ends just as horrible as men in my game art.
Yes, ridiculous is the word I’d use for the situation.
And to say “objectification is bad” is perfectly reasonable when talking about real live people, but when it comes to art that is not taken from life, *everything* is ultimately just an object. It’s all manufactured and not real. Every single rock, tree, wall, every living being (male and female, human and inhuman), every scrap of clothing people are wearing (or not) and every thing they carry is a complete fabrication and must be deliberately created and how they all look is really the only important thing for the final piece.
Even if reference models are involved, they get involved after the composition and positioning is worked out. They fit the art, not the other way around. Their purpose is to make sure the fancier art ends up looking more realistic and not too stylized.
If you have the first box set, you can look through that and judge for yourself how I treat the portrayal of women (and men!) in the game. I don’t consider the next printing to have a different attitude towards that, even if the overall visual atmosphere is darker.
2010-12-02 at 14:59
Perhaps I interpreted you wrong, but I’m sure you realize that I can only judge what you’ve written, which I frankly find unsympathetic.
I’ll try to explain the reasoning behind my writing.
Would you say that men have been subjected to objectifying as long as women have? Do you know the cultural/ sociological history of how women have been treated through the ages? In Sweden, we gained the right to vote in 1911 (or to be exact in 1918), not even a hundred years ago.
Historically, women have been regarded as chattel, as possessions. Yes, men have too. But nowhere near the same level as women. Now I’m not trying to make this into a blame game, but in order to understand my comment, you have to understand the history behind it. Women have been regarded and still are regarded as objects.
Yes, I do tend to analyze the wording of texts, and in this case… I tried to make a point when it comes to objectifying women. You have the right to think it was unfair. Maybe it is.
And then to build on that to say, “För min del är det uppenbart att dess författare inte har någon som helst respekt för mig som kvinna eller som rollspelare.” I obviously don’t agree with that.
Reading your blogpost, I feel you don’t respect me as a role-player and as a woman. You might not have intended it, but that’s the result. That’s how I read it.
And regarding your wording – I never interpreted it as if you found juggling the demands on your artists and the art you wanted as the “ridiculous” and “silly” part. I interpreted the text as if you found the idea to even have to think about gender issues silly and ridiculous. Perhaps you didn’t mean it that way (obviously it seems as if you didn’t), but that’s what I got from the blog post.
I would also like to point out that the depiction of women (and for that matter men) as objects is not as harmless as you would have it. There’s a psychological effect called priming. I don’t know if you know about it so this is an explanation based on the assumption that you don’t. In effect it’s a subconscious assimilation of the information around us. If, lets say, a woman is seen in every commercial with a vacuum cleaner, we start to imagine women as naturally connected to vacuum cleaners. If we see women as objects, as victims and powerless, we start to make a connect subconsciously to women as objects, victims and powerless. And there’s the rub, because we see it all the time in fantasy art. And not just fantasy art. The fashion industry has been at the forefront of connecting sex with violence against women, so have the movies and TV-series. An excellent example of violence against women as a stereotypical repetition can be found in for example “Supernatural”. We see this all the time, and we are – whether we like it or not – being primed to connect them.
And yes, I do have the boxed set and some of your additional adventures, I bought them from you at Stockholms spelkonvent, and I’ve reviewed the box and the adventures for the Swedish gaming magazine Fenix, and I loved it. I really did. No problems whatsoever with the art (except in some cases the quality of it) and I like the premise. That’s why I get so disappointed when you express yourself the way you do in your blog. And that’s why I wrote this post.
You may not agree with what I say, you may think I’m unfair. That’s fine. We don’t always have to agree. But for me as a woman and as a player, knowing the reasoning behind decisions may make me less inclined to buy products from creators with whom I don’t agree on issues that are important to me.
2010-12-02 at 16:25
>>I’m sure you realize that I can only judge what you’ve written, which I frankly find unsympathetic.
Fair enough, and that’s why I’m explaining further. If you still find it unsympathetic, also fair enough, but I also think it’s fair to try to clear up any misunderstanding caused by how I worded the original post.
The artwork for the next printing isn’t going to be a parade of mangled and distressed women. It really isn’t. But there are going to be a few such pieces, just as there are going to be a few pieces with mangled and distressed men and pieces where nobody is mangled or distressed.
>>No problems whatsoever with the art (except in some cases the quality of it)
… which is, by the way, why I’m having new art done now that I have the opportunity and the budget.
2010-12-07 at 00:06
Det är lite som kvinnosynen i Tékumel. Slavkvinnor – boskap, samma ord för båda. Våldtäkt som ett sätt att tysta upproriska kvinnor, och total avsaknad av sexualitet för de kvinnor som vill göra något annat än det typiskt kvinnliga. Celibat. Bli en okönad varelse för att bli mer än en kvinna. Avsäg dig din sexualitet för att bli en människa.
I’m a little puzzled by your view of Tékumel. I’ve been reading quite a lot of the material recently, and I don’t recognise any of this. “Total celibacy for any woman wishing to engage in anything other than typical female activities”? As far as I know, the only celibate people in Tékumel are pre-pubescent children. Or are you thinking of the priestesses of the virgin goddess Dilinala? Considering that she is the goddess of “woman in love with woman”, I have always assumed that this meant a prohibition on sex with men, not all sex. “Rape as a means of silencing rebellious women”? Where did you get this from? The only reference to rape I have managed to locate in the source materials describes it as a crime. And I haven’t been able to locate any reference to their word for slave, male or female. I’m really beginning to wonder if you’re not confusing Tékumel with Gor or something. Do you think you could please share your references? Because I’m now wondering if I’ve missed something enormous in my Tékumel reading…
2010-12-07 at 19:11
Åsa, you are really important! I agree with you, please keep up the good work! <3
2010-12-08 at 10:56
Okay, I did a little more research about this Tékumel language issue. The word for slave is “nrágakh”. The word for female slave is “nrágarakh”. Note the similarity of these words – if female slaves are ‘livestock’, then so are male slaves. Hardly enlightened, but not sexist as such.
However, no published source gives a word for ‘livestock’. This makes me even more intrigued to know what your sources are. You would appear to be privy to information that is unavailable to the rest of us.
Unless, of course, you’re just making the whole thing up …
2010-12-08 at 11:19
Well, of course, I COULD be making the whole thing up, but that would be rather irresponsible, don’t you think?
I don’t have the sources easily available at the moment, but the first issue – women = cattle – appears in Gary Alan Fines “Shared Fantasy”. The issue rape and sexual violence as a means of controlling female characters also partly appears in Gary Alan Fines “Shared Fantasy” and the book “Gaming As Culture” by editors Hendricks, Winkler and Williams (I think). Both titles are listed under resources if you want publisher and more details on the books.
2010-12-08 at 21:32
@Calum – I’m terribly sorry, I seem to have given you the wrong source for one of the quotes. They actually both come from Gaming as Culture, and I did misremember one of them slightly.
About women having to deny their femininity:
Indeed, the only way women could have the status of men was to declare themselves ‘aridani’ – members of a class of women who take the social role of men. To my discomfort, this sexist mindset was also reflected in the RPG during game play. My female character was required to declare herself ‘aridani’ before she could go adventuring with the boys, for example, and her sex became an ongoing obstacle for her.
About slave women as cattle:
[…] this misogynist attitude was also present, more subtly, in the approach toward women displayed in sourcebooks for the game. For instance, on the cover of the Tsolyani Language Part II sourcebook (Imperium Publishing 1978) is a cartoon that depicts two men having problems understanding the intricate language Barker devised for his world. Some confusion comes up between the words for “shlen beast” – a fantasy beast of burden – and “slave woman”. The interaction in the comic imples that there may not be a real difference between the two.”
Pages 128 and 129 of Gaming as Culture, Playing with Identity by M. Nephew
2010-12-09 at 13:43
Thanks for getting back to me on that, I really appreciate it! My take on the matter of aridani is that it’s a formalisation and rationalisation of the approach often taken towards female player characters in many games using historical Europe as a base (i.e. D&D, which was the only other RPG on the market when Tékumel was first published). That is to say, while there is a broad acceptance that female roles in general will traditionally be fairly restricted (otherwise the game world starts to lose that historical feel), this doesn’t apply to female player characters, who are assumed to be exceptional in some way. Tékumel, with its highly formalised societies, makes this into a formal and recognised social phenomenon (an approach which is taken with many other of the stock characteristics of fantasy RPGs, such as dungeons). I couldn’t say whether this constitutes a denial of one’s femininity or not. But I think it’s worth pointing out that there’s nothing in the gamebooks that suggests an aridani woman is in any way less feminine or that her sex should be a problem for her or for anyone else – her status is universally recognised and accepted (and has been for millenia). Importantly, aridani women actually have more sexual freedom than their non-aridani sisters, being free to take as many (or as few) husbands, wives or lovers as they wish. I’m not going to comment on the Tsolyani Language sourcebook, as I’ve never even seen a copy, let alone read one – and my irritation over somebody heavily criticising something that they had apparently never read was what led me to post here in the first place. Once again, thanks for taking the time to research those sources for me!
2010-12-09 at 14:25
My take on the matter of aridani is that it’s a formalisation and rationalisation of the approach often taken towards female player characters in many games using historical Europe as a base (i.e. D&D, which was the only other RPG on the market when Tékumel was first published).
My take is this: just because the games uses an “historical basis”, there’s nothing in the game mechanics or in how the games are played that really demand that women be subordinate. These are games that we’re talking about. My question is why it’s SO important to keep the structures of our own society – in some cases making them even more strict – for women, but not for men.
That is to say, while there is a broad acceptance that female roles in general will traditionally be fairly restricted (otherwise the game world starts to lose that historical feel), this doesn’t apply to female player characters, who are assumed to be exceptional in some way.
What historical feel? What exactly is it that is so important with keeping women subordinate? This is not really a question just for you. It’s a question I’d like to pose to anyone making games of any kind, be it digital or analogue.
And on another note – just because it is assumed that female player characters are exceptional, the message sent to women/ girl players via the text (women are subordinate, only very unique women ever go on adventures, vs. all men can adventure at any time) and the images traditionally used in RPG’s that point to women being objects to look at, ’cause they’re pretty, is that women don’t have a place in this world. And if they do, they’re exceptional. The structure of the books, from a text/ image point of view is like walking into a room where there are only guys, and you’re the only girl. It’s like hitting a wall. It’s a feeling – “you don’t belong here”.
Tékumel, with its highly formalised societies, makes this into a formal and recognised social phenomenon (an approach which is taken with many other of the stock characteristics of fantasy RPGs, such as dungeons). I couldn’t say whether this constitutes a denial of one’s femininity or not. But I think it’s worth pointing out that there’s nothing in the gamebooks that suggests an aridani woman is in any way less feminine or that her sex should be a problem for her or for anyone else – her status is universally recognised and accepted (and has been for millenia). Importantly, aridani women actually have more sexual freedom than their non-aridani sisters, being free to take as many (or as few) husbands, wives or lovers as they wish.
Ah. So in other words, she gains respect because she behaves as a man traditionally would? In order to become something more than “just a woman”, she has to become something else. She can’t be “just” a woman and still be able to act and behave as a human being, with the status of other human beings, i.e. men and other aridani. I still think it’s sexist.
2010-12-10 at 15:45
“I still think it’s sexist.”
And you may well be right. I’m not actually arguing that Tékumel isn’t sexist – I really wanted to correct what looked like a few misunderstandings on your side. But then I veered off into my own speculations about what may have led Barker to come up with the idea of aridani, as opposed to just having everybody be equal (which I regret in retrospect). At any rate, you’ve given me a few things to think about…
“What historical feel? What exactly is it that is so important with keeping women subordinate?”
OK, rather than referring back to D&D (a game I haven’t played in 20 years) and the medieval history nerds who designed it, I’d rather use a game I do play, Call of Cthulhu, as an example. My Cthulhu campaign is set in Victorian London. I deliberately include such unsavoury elements as sexism, anti-Semitism, classism etc because they were present at the time; it’s part of establishing historical versimilitude. My approach is that everything should feel as real as possible – so that when supernatural elements start to appear and plainly impossible things start to happen, they’re more scary. But yes, I allow female player characters. My approach is that *anybody* with the guts enough to defy Cthulhu himself must be exceptional, male or female (and there were many exceptional women in the period in question). My point is that surely only exceptional people (male or female) ever have adventures – in any game? Doesn’t having adventures define you as being exceptional?
“So in other words, she gains respect because she behaves as a man traditionally would?”
I don’t know whether she actually *gains* respect automatically on becoming an aridani. Society on Tékumel is very, very stratified, with a very strict clan system, which resembles the Hindu caste system in some ways. So, for example, if you’re born to be a latrine sweeper, it doesn’t matter if you declare yourself aridani and join the army and become an officer – because status is measured in terms of clan, you’ll still be seen as a stinky latrine sweeper, well below all members of almost every other clan, aridani or otherwise. There’s not a hell of a lot of social mobility. But one thing that would seem to argue in favour of your statement above is that there is no ‘reverse aridani’ option for men – they can’t suddenly decide ‘stuff this career thing, I just want to stay at home with my kids’. So women can move into the male sphere, but men can’t move into the female sphere, which implies that the female sphere isn’t worth moving into.
2010-12-10 at 17:40
“So in other words, she gains respect because she behaves as a man traditionally would? In order to become something more than “just a woman”, she has to become something else?”
OK, sorry to post again, but I’m not sure I understand this. How is an aridani different from (say) a business woman in a suit who’s postponed starting a family so she can have a career? Is she also something other than a woman?