mr_orgue ([info]mr_orgue) wrote in [info]gametime,
@ 2007-03-11 20:00:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:gender issues

Dragon Magazine Covers (3) - Suggestive Attire
A comment that seems to come along with some regularity when discussing depictions of women in game art/fantasy art: "There are just as many instances of sweaty muscular men to be seen, so it all evens out."

Well, not in terms of Dragon covers there aren't. In fact, this survey demonstrates precisely the opposite: women in scanty clothing are depicted far more often than men in similar garb, and moreover, a far greater proportion of depicted women are suggestively clothed than is the case with depicted men.





Before getting into this, recall that in this post I clarified what I classed as 'suggestive attire'. I'd like to add that I tried to be conservative in my categorisation, in order to underestimate any bias that might be found. I did this specifically because I wanted to be very confident I was actually finding a real bias here. Examples:

I classed this image of a woman (seen in that earlier post) as Not suggestively attired, despite the hefty amount of leg on display:



Whereas this image of a man I classed as suggestively attired, even though I find it hard to imagine anyone actually responding to it in that way:





Findings



Of 179 depictions of males, 18 (about 10%) were classed as suggestively attired (Fig 4a).



In contrast, of 126 depictions of females, 52 (about 40%) were classed as suggestively attired (Fig 4b).



The difference is obvious. If there's a woman on a Dragon cover, it is 40% likely she's not wearing much; if there's a man on the cover, it is only 10% likely he's showing skin.




Breaking this down across the 350 issues of the magazine (Fig 5a), we can see that women have consistently been more likely to be depicted suggestively than have men. A brief moment of equal opportunity occurred around issue 150 (in 1989), and suggestive depictions nearly disappeared entirely around issue 225 (1996). However, issues 250 to 300 (1999-2001) take us into an unprecedented era of gender-disparity where women are getting their kit off frequently and men hardly at all. Thankfully, this disparity has lessened since.



The absolute numbers here are relatively small in 25-issue blocks (about 2 years each), so here is the same data replotted in 50-issue blocks (about 4 years each). It gives a clearer view of long-term trends, particularly the consistent gender bias on display.








And now, here's the actual numbers themselves, grouped in 25-issue blocks (Fig 6a) and 50-issue blocks (Fig 6b). Remember, this is the number of actual depictions of men or women in suggestive attire.





Take note of that big spike around issue 275. We saw it just before, and we'll see it again before this exercise is done.





Up above we plotted how attire is divided up within each gender - that is, how many women were shown in suggestive attire vs. how many weren't. Now, let's look at this a different way, and plot how the group of figures in suggestive attire break down by gender. If, as has been claimed, men and women turn up in scanty clothing with roughly equal frequency, then the graphs below should show roughly equal divisions split along the 50% line.

Well, they don't.







In fact, as these numbers make clear, this situation has been getting worse and worse over the 30 year history of the magazine.




All of this information makes clear that, in the Dragon cover image sample, women are much more likely than men to appear scantily clad, and women make up a much higher proportion of scantily clad people. If we can take this as a representative sample of RPG art, then the claim of gender parity in this imagery appears to be utterly without substance.

(Note also that this doesn't really mesh with the trend inside the covers, as suggested by the pilot study here. This study is more comprehensive than that one, so it could just be an artifact of chance in the previous case - however, it could also be explained by [info]brand_of_amber's suggestion that cover art tends to be more biased than interior art.)

Next: Submissive depictions


(Post a new comment)


[info]mashugenah
2007-03-11 08:32 am UTC (link)
Cool; interesting reading. For myself, gender equality isn't something I've really worried about much in gaming. Women are outnumbered and so I've always thought that complaining about Dragon magazine and scantily clad women was like taking a stab at FHM for the same thing. Of course, if you pick up a Cleo or whatever, they've probably actually got more skin on display. :) If there were a women-centred gaming magazine, do you think they'd follow that trend of the mainstream print media?

Just one nit-pick: and women make up a much higher proportion of scantily clad women. Er.. duh. :)

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]mr_orgue
2007-03-11 09:04 am UTC (link)
Er, whoops :-) Should be "and women make up a much higher proportion of scantily clad people." Fixed now.

Re: your other comment - the key difference is that gaming is not inherently gendered. Lots of women play games; lots of women express discomfort at how their gender is depicted in gaming art. This makes it an issue in a different way to the gender-oriented FHM and Cleo.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]elmago79
2007-03-11 09:26 am UTC (link)
I wonder how useful are this comparisons. It would be great if you could compare it to a similar period of mainstream magazines. I guess is not at a secret that there is a strong bias in the gaming community about the way women are depicted.

However, I don't know if striving for a 50/50 in the way genders are depicted is actually a good thing. The chainmail bikini, for instance: It's not the fact that it appears so many times, but the fact that it is used at all. On the other hand, suggestive male figures are not AS sugestive as female figures in the covers. Culturally, a woman in a cage means something entierly different from a man in a cage. This is very subjective, I know, but my guess is some criterion for objectivity could be found.

I'm not trying to invalidate your analysis. Next time someone says there's equal gender representation in Dragon, I can point them here. However, I think 50/50 is still the wrong message.

René López

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mr_orgue
2007-03-11 09:34 am UTC (link)
Oh, heck yeah - I should have put this right at the top. My focus on the 50/50 thing is because that's a claim that is made - "There are sexy images for boys, and there are sexy images for girls, so everyone is happy and no-one has cause for complaint." This analysis shows that claim is without merit.

You can go a lot further into this - what percentage of images showing skin *is* acceptable? That gets too far into value judgement territory for the analysis I'm doing, but I hope it can get discussed in comments. I'll probably address it later on in the series too.

(And, at the very least, 50/50 would be an improvement on now. It isn't an end goal - it's an absolute minimum.)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]brand_of_amber
2007-03-11 08:19 pm UTC (link)
Fascinating.

Especially the stuff around 2002 where you found the interior art to be so generally good. See, I remembered a period where I was very happy with Dragon (around that time, when I read the mag occasionally) and then recently haven't been -- as I've only been looking at covers. I find the split... odd.

And as others have pointed out, this doesn't even get into the issue of "how suggestive" or "suggestive in what way." But that's not a criticism of your study, its just a point that these numbers show something and something useful, but not all of it.

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]brand_of_amber
2007-03-11 08:26 pm UTC (link)
Furthermore, how about the fact that the point at which there was a 50/50 split is in the earliest days, and in many ways the divide has gotten bigger over time. I mean that spike around issue 300 is really something, isn't it?

Also, Mo would like to know if she can use your study on the feminist-RPG blog she's putting together. She will, of course, link and give full and proper credit.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mr_orgue
2007-03-11 09:25 pm UTC (link)
There was really something in the water with the issues 251-275 - that block really stands out. I note that the 3rd Edition era began in issue 274.

The curious can check out the covers here:
http://paizo.com/dragon/products/issues/2000
http://paizo.com/dragon/products/issues/1999
http://paizo.com/dragon/products/issues/1998

--

Mo is more than welcome! I hope this turns out to be something of use to people :-)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]robotnik
2007-03-15 09:01 pm UTC (link)
It's the issue 250-275 spike that most interests me too. I know that you're collecting data here, not necessarily interpreting it, but do you (or anyone else reading this) have any thoughts on what might account for that? Is that immediately before or immediately after the WOTC-TSR buyout?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


[info]mr_orgue
2007-03-16 12:01 am UTC (link)
I can't find anything obvious. WotC took over in 1997 with issue 237, under Pierce Watters (Editor in Chief) and Dave Gross (Editor) with Larry Smith as Art Director. Dave had only started in issue 230, but Pierce went back a ways and Larry went back years and years.

In 251 Bill Slavicsek took the EiC role and Pierce became Exec Editor. Bill disappeared a while later but Pierce stayed as Exec Ed, not going back to EiC. In 267 Pierce disappeared and Dave stayed as sole Editor.

In 264 Shauna Wolf-Narciso became Senior Art Director (Larry kept his post as Art Director).

3rd Ed's arrival in 274 changed the picture a bit, with a new art direction for D&D material.

In short, the spike seemed to come from essentially the same bunch of people as had been there for years. Shauna Wolf-Narciso might have had something to do with it? Or perhaps there was a decision made to chase these covers because they sold well, that was overruled by the 3rd edition change in direction? Or maybe it was just a weird accident?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-10-31 07:20 pm UTC (link)
Another thought - that was the time of the tech bubble. Gaming was getting a lot more attention than usual, and there are all kinds of ways that could have affected how the culture presented itself. For instance, artists who'd previously done other kinds of work could have been trying to get into this area, and produced stereotypical illustrations because that's what they thought was expected.

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…