This is like that featured article a while back where “men are nazis”.
I must have missed that one, link it before the thread closes.
No. It was an admitted mistake on behalf of everyone involved. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t exactly “men are nazis”, but moreso took you on a path that led as close to that conclusion as possible without actually saying it outright.
I just think the OP has already gotten what they were looking for(considering they haven’t posted since the OP), and further discussion will just get ugly.
Maybe to some pubescent fanboy/girl but to many others it isn't.
Why the need for this? You could have very easily ended your post without this comment and it wouldn’t have mattered. So those that prefer that style are “pubescent fanboys/girls”? There could be just as “many” that prefer that style of art.
Damn, first a women claims to know sexism because she’s a woman, then you go ahead and say “beauty is in the eye of the beholder” unless you like a certain art style, because that’s childish.
And to clarify the point, nobody here has “shat on” these opinions of yours(and lookashiny). It’s quite the opposite. You’ve gone out and labeled a group of people that don’t agree with you. How lovely.
Edit: Popluar opinion time! Somebody should lock this thread before it continues. This is like that featured article a while back where “men are nazis”.
How on earth is it sexist for a woman to say that they know what sexism (obviously being misogyny specifically in this case) is because they're a woman? Be definition, women are main people who are affected by misogyny and deal with it the most. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how a woman could make the claim that they know a thing or two about it and not is it sexist. This is like claiming that it's racist for a black to say that they know some things about anti-black racism. Stop trying to take the easy, word-twisting route to de-legitimize people's arguments and actually try to hit the arguments themselves.
On the topic. I voted no. Not everyone wants chainmail bikini style art being the norm. I don't consider the claim of women who don't have their cleavage showing to be "covered up like nuns" as a valid form of criticism. Women just wear clothes too, you know? To claim that female characters who aren't drawn to be your eye candy are somehow prudish is both hilarious and sad. Yes, this is fantasy. But fa tasy can mean a lot more than wildly impractical outfits drawn just to make you feel tingly. Showing some skin does have its place though, and I feel that more revealing designs can be put to good use on the right characters. If Gwendlyn Di Corci ever got a reprint/remake that would be a perfect place. As is any Liliana card. Etc. The basic philosophy from the much bemoaned "SJW" camp is "Let's draw women with the same design philosophy that we use for men". If men aren't serially sexualized in Magic (Spoiler: They're not. Whoever it was that said that Gideon showing one bicep in full plate armor was sexualized, I laughed at that pretty hard.), then women shouldn't be either.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Pop in, find a dragon, roast a dragon."
-Chandra Nalaar
I just think the OP has already gotten what they were looking for(considering they haven’t posted since the OP), and further discussion will just get ugly.
I missed this when i posted.
Yeah, after three pages I have no choice but to agree with you on this one.
How on earth is it sexist for a woman to say that they know what sexism (obviously being misogyny specifically in this case) is because they're a woman? Be definition, women are main people who are affected by misogyny and deal with it the most. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see how a woman could make the claim that they know a thing or two about it and not is it sexist. This is like claiming that it's racist for a black to say that they know some things about anti-black racism. Stop trying to take the easy, word-twisting route to de-legitimize people's arguments and actually try to hit the arguments themselves.
Well, considering the views of that poster, who by admission is a woman, clashes with those of the OP who is also a woman, I’d say something is a bit off kilter there. They aren’t speaking on behalf of all women, they are only speaking on behalf of themselves, it is simply an opinion and not a statement of fact. More to the point, drawings of women in and of themselves are not sexist. This is fact. Like I said on the last page(did you just come in mid conversation? I think you did) if MtG marketed there product with that art. That would be sexist. You could even go so far as to say that if there were no Female Pw’s, that would be sexist.
Again, I’m done discussing this, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Case in point: You reply to me, when is all I really did was call somebody out for using a term incorrectly(which she did), yet have nothing to say on the matter of the other poster using a derogatory term for people who like Anime art style, which is simply a different opinion than their own. That is messed up, you get to pick and choose? As for the Gideon comment? Where my “dad bod” art portrayal? Not all guys look like that, or can dress like that for that matter? So you laugh at that? Pretty out of touch with reality, and by admission you thought it was funny. Sick bro.
Women have by no means a better understanding of what sexism is.
There is sexism against male and female. If someone claims the high ground you simply know what game they are trying to play, and thats not a good one.
----
The vast majority of artwork is "fine" , some has the WotC agenda of forced diversity which produces some kwerky awkward art / some might find that not fitting the world, others dont mind at all, and some enjoy it ; so if it is something than it produces controversial artwork, on top of the controversial topics of displayed "violence" , "gore", "religion", and what not else ; people that want to be offended will be offended, and all the others just ignore it, as they dont notice it anyway.
----
Ixalan was more "in your face" forcing a 50/50 ratio of pirates, to a degree it was just silly, but they can get away with it by simply claiming its a fantasy world, thats its rules (which works for whatever idea you have as an excuse to do whatever you want).
People still didnt really like it, or didnt care at all (and like with every generalization some people have to like it or just like it, because others dont like it and so on) but thats the kind of forced diversity they want to push, so the world is shaped to accommodate that.
Ravnica does that a bit better, as they tend to either display whatever character they have in a very generic art, so it could just be whatever gender as its a un-named soldier in the picture, but in a setting like Ravnica a 50/50 gender split works slightly better as there are more different kinds of "jobs" and classes , not so dominantly male as a classic "pirate".
They even made some "female" zombies , like Stitcher's Supplier, in the vast majority zombies are male, in fantasy in general you have a lot less female zombies.
The classic "female" goblin in old sets would have been a Goblin matron , today random goblins (like Goblin Chainwhirler) are simply turned female, because "why not", only really noticeable in languages that put a gender in the cards name.
The naked chest is totally "normal" in male art in magic cards Fathom Fleet Captain, people dont really notice it as a sexualized art at all, unless its really really dominant like in Enthralling Victor (which as a "female" version would be incredible sexualized and people would probably go on a rampage).
I have seen people that tryd to tell me the artwork for Vicious Rumors is somehow a displayed sexual harassment, i mean, cmon, lets be real, its not at all.
So the VAST majority of cards has a fine artwork, its quite generic display of generic people, that could very well be male or female, doesnt matter.
Displayed women cant really have "big" boobs as that would always be classified as sexualized by the feminists, so the vast majority of boobs are hidden behind armor or lots of cloth ; so theres limits that WotC is not willing to break, while they dont have such rules for male characters in that regard.
They have the issue of violence against women:
women winning over men is fine Triumph of Cruelty
but men winning over women is evil Triumph of Ferocity
Its just the world we are living in "today" and the game is formed to reflect that.
----
They try to avoid prominent display of cleavage , we got that in the past and sometimes an artwork sneaks in :
Ixalan was more "in your face" forcing a 50/50 ratio of pirates, to a degree it was just silly, but they can get away with it by simply claiming its a fantasy world, thats its rules (which works for whatever idea you have as an excuse to do whatever you want).
Two things here:
a) arguably the most successful pirate in history was a Chinese lady, so the idea of lady pirates isn't even that weird in real life.
b) The Brazen Coalition was repeatedly described as an entire floating nation.
They have the issue of violence against women:
women winning over men is fine Triumph of Cruelty
but men winning over women is evil Triumph of Ferocity
From what I remember, the main issue with triumph of Ferocity is that it looks like actual domestic violence rather than the magical fantasy combat that normally shows up on Magic Cards, and also people who didn't know Magic's story didn't know how terrible a person Liliana is.
I've heard no-one complaining about Bedevil or Lava Coil, despite murder by imps and immolation being worse fates than getting punched in the face, and that's probably because the context is different.
As far as Enthralling Victor goes, I think they got away with it simply because shirtlessness is generally less sexualized for men than women, and there's less weird social background radiation regarding men's behaviour and appearances in general because the society we live in is still pretty biased in favour of men. Also the blushing goblin is objectively hilarious.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
The only problem with the artwork nowadays is how drably homogeneous the direction has become. At a rough estimate 75% is some sort of fantasy realism that to me screams of kitsch, but more the truly bad rather than the charming variety. Like the subtly or not so subtly injected political issues, (enforced diversity, gender politics), aggressive attempts to be epic and a spectacle at all times, attempts to replicate the whole Marvel superhero experience with the Planeswalkers, and to push them as an intentional product - a lot of things about Magic have become more artificial than magical.
The game is still good, but the charm has worn thin.
These were all part of a free promo Portal deck I got with a magazine that introduced me to Magic. Devoted Hero Skeletal Snake Goblin Bully Minotaur Warrior Hulking Goblin
How quaint it seems nowadays, yet infinitely more self-assured. You can really tell that these cards were made in a liberal (you have an idea? let's do it!) kind of environment, and the only box that needed ticking was the satisfaction of the guys making it. Even if the artwork is inferior in technique to the hyper competitive art market of today (and it was, short of a few star artists like Brom), no amount of technique can substitute for heart.
But the thing that maid me salty enough to make this post is the new teysa art work for the guild kits. Im not sure how they managed to mess it up is beyond me seeing how all her other arts have been good. Like they completely changed her design. her face looks wierd and not like teysa. They completely changed her outfit. All her other artwork gave the impression she was confident, charismatic, cunning, enigmatic and an aristocrat. Like she looked like she new she was better than everyone and liked it. now she looks like generic wizard.
Maybe its just me, but I disagree with the OP's notion that Teysa only recently has changed.
Take some time to look at the artwork below for both versions of Scion, Envoy, and Karlov. You may notice something about the face, it became less angular with subsequent versions such as Envoy. New Scion is more rounder and resembles a younger facial structure of Envoy and Karlov.
Regarding fashion, are you talking about the chest window? Because that is only maintained by OG Scion and Envoy. The hairstyle is also different between all 4. The main clothes she wears are all different. Even with facial piercings, Envoy + Karlov + New Scion lack the ear piercings that OG Scion has.
Also you want to talk of how she looked like a confident aristocrat but that its now taken away? You mean how New Scion looks like a fresh-faced member of the Orzhov Syndicate? That her clothes look more uniform and less personalized? Such as portraying someone when they were younger?
I find this new trend of making the females all covered up and ugly really dumb.
Ive been annoyed with the way theyve changed the art work were they feel a need make a lot of female art work bland and make them less beautiful. Also making Its not all bad like i really like Judith's and the new teysas art but there just seems to be alot more bland pieces nowadays and some are even cards like legendary creatures like new radha or admiral Becket brass. Also the whole thing where a bunch of female characters look like dudes i dumb to. like Why would even feminists want the girls to look like dudes dont they want more female representation. I just find the decline in art kindof sad because the cool art was part of what drew me in. And i also really liked the cool female character but im much less likeley to care about characters whose cards have bland art and design.
I'm sorry in advance for butchering your post, but it's for space saving, not an attempt to misrepresent what you said.
I am also a female player, so I do feel I bring my own perspective to this, but I want to specifically touch on the bolded points here.
As a predominantly commander player, I have a deep connection to both the character and the artwork of the decks I play. I get very in to the lore behind the creatures I make my generals (well, as much as I'm able to, at least) and I have a big thing for only running art I personally find attractive and aesthetically pleasing for my generals. Whereas you've mentioned Grand Warlord Radha among the kinds of cards you dislike, I absolutely adore the likes of her and Saskia the Unyielding. I find the concept of a gorgeous, badass warrior woman deeply attractive. And that's the point of having a more diverse range of characters.
While you find characters like Liliana and Teysa appealing, they come off as rather dull and uninspired to me, as the niches they fill are ones that, for a very long time, have been extremely common aesthetics in gaming. And I'm bored of it. But on the flip side, I find a lot more of the buff and conservative characters stunning. And it's okay for both of us to like these things, and I appreciate that there has been more of a balance to both sides of the coin in recent sets. It means that a wider ranger of people are more likely to find something they enjoy, and as a whole, I find that to be extremely beneficial.
Let's not forget that "breast"plate would be more costly to produce than actual breastplate armor (both in effort and materials), and would actually endanger the wearer, since it would deflect blows towards the heart rather than away.
"Breast"-Armor would totally be a thing , if women would actually prominently wear armor in high numbers :
Having slightly round breast shapes isnt even bad, deflecting is not really the "main" job of a armor (its main job being to protect you from "cuts" and blows with its inner cushion), the armor itself is protection, and wearing the armor is a statement itself too.
In old Rome, men would wear armor thats shaped like a muscular men, because it looked cool, women would do the same to follow what would look cool for them.
Men made giant **** pieces of armor to make their dicks look gigantic for gods sake.
A proper armor is totally fine protection, the breast shaped parts are no "real" problem at all, especially not for a proper smith, if thats what commonly is wished for by a lot of female warriors, you would TOTALLY get breast shaped armor made for them, just like men want to have ridiculous shaped armor made for them (even for their dongs).
As far as muscle armour in the Roman Empire is concerned, that was mainly worn by Gladiators, and the point of Gladiator combat was to be impressive and entertaining, to the degree that gladiators didn't fight to the death anywhere near as often as pop culture says they did: training skilled gladiators took time and money.
Actual soldiers generally wore rounded strips of metal and/or chain vests, because those worked better at keeping them alive.
Shad generally has well constructed arguments regarding medieval stuff so I'll watch his videos when I have more time to, but I'm going to go on record saying that if I'm going to take a claymore to the chest I want it to hit a rounded shell rather than a breastbone facing wedge of metal, no matter how much padding I have under the actual armour.
Also, as far as ridiculous fantasy aesthetics are concerned, I personally think Lyra Dawnbringer and the other "stained glass armour" arts from Dominaria are among the best design MTG has had for a while.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Tell me who you walk with, and I'll tell you who you are.” Esmeralda Santiago Art is life itself.
Women have by no means a better understanding of what sexism is.
You're implying that men know just as much about sexism as women do, which is as baffling as saying that white people know just as much about racism as people of colour. I'd also recommend looking up the difference between systematic and individual sexism, because those are very different things.
They have the issue of violence against women:
women winning over men is fine Triumph of Cruelty
but men winning over women is evil Triumph of Ferocity
Cruelty triumphing is "fine"? Cruelty is customarily considered a bad thing.
Garruk about to bash Liliana like a domestic violence situation, however, is an even worse thing because of the imagery involved.
You're implying that men know just as much about sexism as women do, which is as baffling as saying that white people know just as much about racism as people of colour. I'd also recommend looking up the difference between systematic and individual sexism, because those are very different things.
I believe in the individual and judge people as individuals, not as groups.
Any human is an individual, not a group.
Thinking of groups is the most toxic a human can do to another, as it undermines and tries to devalue everything that makes up the individual that in its core is any human being.
Cruelty triumphing is "fine"? Cruelty is customarily considered a bad thing.
Garruk about to bash Liliana like a domestic violence situation, however, is an even worse thing because of the imagery involved.
Translating "domestic violence situation" into a magic card that is about 2 immensely powerful planeswalker fighting each other is utter nonsense, and is the perfect example of people trying to imply real life connections to something that has not even remotely any connection to such things.
Some people just try to see the absolute worst in everything and try to smear anybody that is not in their crosshair of "good" and "evil" people.
Its downright crazy as this road of thinking only leads to complete misguided hatred.
Some people might seek the good in things, what they enjoy and love, embracing the game for what it is, bringing people together.
Others just look for something to outrage about and the moment a person tries to set themselves above others and ignores the individual and puts people in boxes, they lost any connection to the real world.
I believe in the individual and judge people as individuals, not as groups.
Even on an individual level, you're not going to find very many men who've been impacted by institutional sexism because institutional power favours men pretty much every time.
Translating "domestic violence situation" into a magic card that is about 2 immensely powerful planeswalker fighting each other is utter nonsense, and is the perfect example of people trying to imply real life connections to something that has not even remotely any connection to such things.
Imagery is a thing that matters. Garruk looks like he's about to deliver the same kind of violence a great many women have been subjected to, whereas the reverse situation is... Garruk just kind of flat on his back while Liliana stands over him. Not Liliana about to deliver a punch or anything.
Triumph of Cruelty is passable as a piece of Magic art because it's not depicting things in a manner far too close to home for people who've been subject to domestic violence (unless you want to argue that PTSD isn't a real thing). Triumph of Ferocity is not, because it does.
Some people
Please be more specific instead of just saying "some people."
Even on an individual level, you're not going to find very many men who've been impacted by institutional sexism because institutional power favours men pretty much every time.
Theres no such thing as "favours men", thats as toxic as it gets to even have that opinion, especially if its complete bollocks.
It is however a very clear display of a political stands thats questionable at best and by itself sexism.
So i wont drive down this ballpark any further as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand anyway and will with guarantee only result in flame and *****posts.
Imagery is a thing that matters. Garruk looks like he's about to deliver the same kind of violence a great many women have been subjected to, whereas the reverse situation is... Garruk just kind of flat on his back while Liliana stands over him. Not Liliana about to deliver a punch or anything.
Triumph of Cruelty is passable as a piece of Magic art because it's not depicting things in a manner far too close to home for people who've been subject to domestic violence (unless you want to argue that PTSD isn't a real thing). Triumph of Ferocity is not, because it does.
Triumph of Cruelty can be interpreted as female violence using a mob (zombies) to do the violence in her name.
Its the same display of violence Triumph of Ferocity, its just 2 different stances of how these characters would approach to fight.
Non is less violent than the other, both are going to kill the other, and both are exceptional violent with deadly force and the worst intends possible.
Also, every form of violence can be translated to something a person might have experienced in real life. That alone shouldnt be a reason to make displaying that fantasy art somehow problematic at all.
Individuals have issues, they should deal with them.
Marking a specific "group" of people as more valuable or more "worth" protecting than other "groups" is just again the display of a form of group thinking thats extremely problematic and toxic.
If an individual has a problem with an artwork that in their mind looks somehow like "domestic violence" , then thats entirely their personal issue, and they can simply choose to not like the artwork and keep on with their lives.
If an artwork of a person getting Incinerated Disintegrate isnt a problem at all, then its downright ridiculous to make a artwork of a simple "punch" a giant outcry, its fantasy art after all, and real world thinking has no place in this fantasy.
If someone wants to be consistent in their logic of what art they claim to be problematic and what not, than at least say every form of violence is bad, not just specific subsets of violence against specific subset of groups of people, this kind of group thinking is a sickness.
Please be more specific instead of just saying "some people."
Some people fits perfectly well, as it doesnt check any boxes.
Marking a specific "group" of people as more valuable or more "worth" protecting than other "groups" is just again the display of a form of group thinking thats extremely problematic and toxic.
There are people who are statistically at greater risk than others. Hence why it's exceedingly tasteless to show Garruk about to punch Liliana after restraining her. Refusing to acknowledge social groups is a privilege afforded to people who don't have to think about the subject on a regular basis. Put another way, the fact that you're willing to reject the idea that groups matter is evidence that you've never been pigeonholed or disadvantaged based on gender or any other facet of identity.
Society and its norms are the sum of its actors. So when a company like Wizards produces art that's uncomfortably close to real-life gender-based violence (or they objectify women, or whatever else), they're contributing to an overarching trend. When they don't do that, they're not contributing to an overarching trend. But at the end of the day, it's always intellectually disingenuous to say "there are no such things as patterns, only a great many isolated incidents."
Some people fits perfectly well, as it doesnt check any boxes.
If you don't want to label groups, then why label a group as "some people"?
There are people who are statistically at greater risk than others. Hence why it's exceedingly tasteless to show Garruk about to punch Liliana after restraining her. Refusing to acknowledge social groups is a privilege afforded to people who don't have to think about the subject on a regular basis. Put another way, the fact that you're willing to reject the idea that groups matter is evidence that you've never been pigeonholed or disadvantaged based on gender or any other facet of identity.
Society and its norms are the sum of its actors. So when a company like Wizards produces art that's uncomfortably close to real-life gender-based violence (or they objectify women, or whatever else), they're contributing to an overarching trend. When they don't do that, they're not contributing to an overarching trend. But at the end of the day, it's always intellectually disingenuous to say "there are no such things as patterns, only a great many isolated incidents."
Its a companies job to produce a product, not make political arguments and especially not, push something specific for a subset of people.
Its exactly what people critique, rightfully, and they hate WotC doing this, as it has no logical reason, its just political agenda.
If VIOLENCE is bad, then ALL Violence is bad, not just a subset of violence someone claims upsets them personally.
The moment you cherry pick something and ignore the rest, you are doing nobody a favor, you just claim to be more important or above others, and thats just toxic and evil in nature.
Its a fantasy world after all, and if there is violence, then thats it.
I for once want to see boobs and cleavage in my female art. At least some, not all of them.
Why? I find it aesthetically. Basandra, Battle Seraph
And theres absolutely nothing wrong with boobs, but for whatever reason WotC clearly thinks boobs are inherently evil and female have to be flat.
If an artist paints a picture and the female happens to have boobs as they feel it looks great on that art, that should be fine, instead of not accepting that art and shrinking the boobs to make it acceptable ; which is just silly and somewhat discrimination against females that happen to have bigger boobs as that would be a crime or valued less in a made up social hierarchy of body objectivity (which is a thing for female characters and much less for male characters).
In the end they can do whatever they want, its a fantasy world, but doing so with a set intention and an agenda just makes it instrumental.
And its a very bad feeling if a COMPANY is trying to influence its customers and tries to influence the customer into portraying a specific "ideal" they want to display of a world they claim to follow in a real life connection.
Its a form of betrayal thats really hurting.
It kills the innocence of a fantasy world and FORCES a connection to the real world, that otherwise wouldnt exist, or just remotely.
The fact that WotC thinks that "representation" is a important deal in cards just produces a checklist of characteristics that have to be on cards, rather than producing good artwork, its following and pushing an agenda, and thats what "some people" really do not like at all.
It really comes down to companies should not meddle with real life politics, and stick to making the best possible product, instead of wiggling to the loudest cry baby that comes around, thats simply pathetic and produces an inferior product.
If you don't want to label groups, then why label a group as "some people"?
Some people is not a group, its literally an undefined group of everyone and that fits perfectly well.
Mad Online 2R
Sorcery (c)
Choose one —
• Its a companies job to produce a product, not make political arguments and especially not, push something specific for a subset of people.
• I for once want to see boobs and cleavage in my female art. "Your subset of humanity is still a subset of humanity."
— Hackworth
they hate WotC doing this, as it has no logical reason, its just political agenda.
Have you considered that the market force of "sexual objectification doesn't play as well as it used to" might be behind Wizards' move?
If VIOLENCE is bad, then ALL Violence is bad
If there's no room for nuance in your arguments, then we aren't going to get very far. The world isn't a simple place, and if you try to remove context from everything (for instance, seeing no difference between a man about to beat a woman and a bunch of zombies knocking a man to the floor), you're going to find you're left with arguments that don't match up with reality.
You also didn't address the fact that your willful blindness to something that members of minority groups see as being completely obvious is more indicative of a privileged mindset than anything else. The argument essentially boils down to "I personally don't see it so it must not exist." Nor did you address the accusation that you're willfully denying that patterns exist despite there being clear statistical trends (nothing but isolated incidents, perhaps?).
Its a form of betrayal thats really hurting.
If you want to get into what businesses are "supposed" to be doing, then it's entirely one thing: Maximizing shareholder value. Your tastes do not line up with overall audience trends, so Wizards no longer caters to them. It's not political. They're just trying to make the most money they can, and they aren't going to do that by keeping the same art style as 20 years ago. That's the ultimate reason you don't see Earthbind-style art anymore, and Basandra-style art is nowhere near as prevalent as it used to be. Don't mix up the beliefs of the players with the beliefs of the company making this game, because the reasons each group holds its respective views are very, very different.
Wizards never betrayed you, because they never owed you anything to begin with. The only people who matter to a corporation are the shareholders, and unless you own enough shares for Hasbro to take notice of you, then you can either accept the shift in presentation or quit the game. That horse isn't going back into its stable.
Some people is not a group, its literally an undefined group of everyone and that fits perfectly well.
If the group "some people" is undefined, then the argument carries no weight because there's absolutely no guarantee that those people even exist and aren't just made up for the sake of argument.
Hence why it's exceedingly tasteless to show Garruk about to punch Liliana after restraining her.
I am a bit confused on that one. She had a fight with Garruk and actually won in the end. Would it be a better fight if things were totally one-sided and Lili just pummeled Garruk into submission? I honestly think that was one of her stronger moments to recover from that and prevail in the end. Why would you not want to show that?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Drop your knees to the floor
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
No. It was an admitted mistake on behalf of everyone involved. Don’t get me wrong, it wasn’t exactly “men are nazis”, but moreso took you on a path that led as close to that conclusion as possible without actually saying it outright.
I just think the OP has already gotten what they were looking for(considering they haven’t posted since the OP), and further discussion will just get ugly.
On the topic. I voted no. Not everyone wants chainmail bikini style art being the norm. I don't consider the claim of women who don't have their cleavage showing to be "covered up like nuns" as a valid form of criticism. Women just wear clothes too, you know? To claim that female characters who aren't drawn to be your eye candy are somehow prudish is both hilarious and sad. Yes, this is fantasy. But fa tasy can mean a lot more than wildly impractical outfits drawn just to make you feel tingly. Showing some skin does have its place though, and I feel that more revealing designs can be put to good use on the right characters. If Gwendlyn Di Corci ever got a reprint/remake that would be a perfect place. As is any Liliana card. Etc. The basic philosophy from the much bemoaned "SJW" camp is "Let's draw women with the same design philosophy that we use for men". If men aren't serially sexualized in Magic (Spoiler: They're not. Whoever it was that said that Gideon showing one bicep in full plate armor was sexualized, I laughed at that pretty hard.), then women shouldn't be either.
-Chandra Nalaar
I missed this when i posted.
Yeah, after three pages I have no choice but to agree with you on this one.
Well, considering the views of that poster, who by admission is a woman, clashes with those of the OP who is also a woman, I’d say something is a bit off kilter there. They aren’t speaking on behalf of all women, they are only speaking on behalf of themselves, it is simply an opinion and not a statement of fact. More to the point, drawings of women in and of themselves are not sexist. This is fact. Like I said on the last page(did you just come in mid conversation? I think you did) if MtG marketed there product with that art. That would be sexist. You could even go so far as to say that if there were no Female Pw’s, that would be sexist.
Again, I’m done discussing this, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Case in point: You reply to me, when is all I really did was call somebody out for using a term incorrectly(which she did), yet have nothing to say on the matter of the other poster using a derogatory term for people who like Anime art style, which is simply a different opinion than their own. That is messed up, you get to pick and choose? As for the Gideon comment? Where my “dad bod” art portrayal? Not all guys look like that, or can dress like that for that matter? So you laugh at that? Pretty out of touch with reality, and by admission you thought it was funny. Sick bro.
There is sexism against male and female. If someone claims the high ground you simply know what game they are trying to play, and thats not a good one.
----
The vast majority of artwork is "fine" , some has the WotC agenda of forced diversity which produces some kwerky awkward art / some might find that not fitting the world, others dont mind at all, and some enjoy it ; so if it is something than it produces controversial artwork, on top of the controversial topics of displayed "violence" , "gore", "religion", and what not else ; people that want to be offended will be offended, and all the others just ignore it, as they dont notice it anyway.
----
Ixalan was more "in your face" forcing a 50/50 ratio of pirates, to a degree it was just silly, but they can get away with it by simply claiming its a fantasy world, thats its rules (which works for whatever idea you have as an excuse to do whatever you want).
People still didnt really like it, or didnt care at all (and like with every generalization some people have to like it or just like it, because others dont like it and so on) but thats the kind of forced diversity they want to push, so the world is shaped to accommodate that.
Ravnica does that a bit better, as they tend to either display whatever character they have in a very generic art, so it could just be whatever gender as its a un-named soldier in the picture, but in a setting like Ravnica a 50/50 gender split works slightly better as there are more different kinds of "jobs" and classes , not so dominantly male as a classic "pirate".
They even made some "female" zombies , like Stitcher's Supplier, in the vast majority zombies are male, in fantasy in general you have a lot less female zombies.
The classic "female" goblin in old sets would have been a Goblin matron , today random goblins (like Goblin Chainwhirler) are simply turned female, because "why not", only really noticeable in languages that put a gender in the cards name.
The naked chest is totally "normal" in male art in magic cards Fathom Fleet Captain, people dont really notice it as a sexualized art at all, unless its really really dominant like in Enthralling Victor (which as a "female" version would be incredible sexualized and people would probably go on a rampage).
I have seen people that tryd to tell me the artwork for Vicious Rumors is somehow a displayed sexual harassment, i mean, cmon, lets be real, its not at all.
So the VAST majority of cards has a fine artwork, its quite generic display of generic people, that could very well be male or female, doesnt matter.
Displayed women cant really have "big" boobs as that would always be classified as sexualized by the feminists, so the vast majority of boobs are hidden behind armor or lots of cloth ; so theres limits that WotC is not willing to break, while they dont have such rules for male characters in that regard.
They have the issue of violence against women:
women winning over men is fine Triumph of Cruelty
but men winning over women is evil Triumph of Ferocity
Its just the world we are living in "today" and the game is formed to reflect that.
----
They try to avoid prominent display of cleavage , we got that in the past and sometimes an artwork sneaks in :
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
That Basandra, Battle Seraph art though, love it.
Spirits
That is a damn nice card.
GENERATION 12: The first time you see this, copy and paste it into your signature and add 1 to the generation number. It's a social experiment.
a) arguably the most successful pirate in history was a Chinese lady, so the idea of lady pirates isn't even that weird in real life.
b) The Brazen Coalition was repeatedly described as an entire floating nation.
From what I remember, the main issue with triumph of Ferocity is that it looks like actual domestic violence rather than the magical fantasy combat that normally shows up on Magic Cards, and also people who didn't know Magic's story didn't know how terrible a person Liliana is.
I've heard no-one complaining about Bedevil or Lava Coil, despite murder by imps and immolation being worse fates than getting punched in the face, and that's probably because the context is different.
As far as Enthralling Victor goes, I think they got away with it simply because shirtlessness is generally less sexualized for men than women, and there's less weird social background radiation regarding men's behaviour and appearances in general because the society we live in is still pretty biased in favour of men. Also the blushing goblin is objectively hilarious.
Art is life itself.
The game is still good, but the charm has worn thin.
These were all part of a free promo Portal deck I got with a magazine that introduced me to Magic.
Devoted Hero
Skeletal Snake
Goblin Bully
Minotaur Warrior
Hulking Goblin
How quaint it seems nowadays, yet infinitely more self-assured. You can really tell that these cards were made in a liberal (you have an idea? let's do it!) kind of environment, and the only box that needed ticking was the satisfaction of the guys making it. Even if the artwork is inferior in technique to the hyper competitive art market of today (and it was, short of a few star artists like Brom), no amount of technique can substitute for heart.
Take some time to look at the artwork below for both versions of Scion, Envoy, and Karlov. You may notice something about the face, it became less angular with subsequent versions such as Envoy. New Scion is more rounder and resembles a younger facial structure of Envoy and Karlov.
Regarding fashion, are you talking about the chest window? Because that is only maintained by OG Scion and Envoy. The hairstyle is also different between all 4. The main clothes she wears are all different. Even with facial piercings, Envoy + Karlov + New Scion lack the ear piercings that OG Scion has.
Also you want to talk of how she looked like a confident aristocrat but that its now taken away? You mean how New Scion looks like a fresh-faced member of the Orzhov Syndicate? That her clothes look more uniform and less personalized? Such as portraying someone when they were younger?
Original Scion
https://magic.wizards.com/sites/mtg/files/image_legacy_migration/images/magic/daily/ftl/ftl240_teysa.jpg
New Scion
https://cdnb.artstation.com/p/assets/images/images/015/230/465/large/sara-winters-sarawinters-teysa.jpg?1547576420
Envoy
https://external-preview.redd.it/5K6LhFBRB9nYXgj70YmBMwtKLO7o1Pki9Fgz1dlfV5U.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=afd8461afab2f743e2adfdb16a3eac54aaa89a04
Karlov
http://www.magali-villeneuve.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Trolov.jpg
Excuse you. Judith is the most beautiful lady of all times, she's no mere "as good as you're going to get" <.<
Trust me, I cry every time I have to Shock her on sight.
Spirits
I am also a female player, so I do feel I bring my own perspective to this, but I want to specifically touch on the bolded points here.
As a predominantly commander player, I have a deep connection to both the character and the artwork of the decks I play. I get very in to the lore behind the creatures I make my generals (well, as much as I'm able to, at least) and I have a big thing for only running art I personally find attractive and aesthetically pleasing for my generals. Whereas you've mentioned Grand Warlord Radha among the kinds of cards you dislike, I absolutely adore the likes of her and Saskia the Unyielding. I find the concept of a gorgeous, badass warrior woman deeply attractive. And that's the point of having a more diverse range of characters.
While you find characters like Liliana and Teysa appealing, they come off as rather dull and uninspired to me, as the niches they fill are ones that, for a very long time, have been extremely common aesthetics in gaming. And I'm bored of it. But on the flip side, I find a lot more of the buff and conservative characters stunning. And it's okay for both of us to like these things, and I appreciate that there has been more of a balance to both sides of the coin in recent sets. It means that a wider ranger of people are more likely to find something they enjoy, and as a whole, I find that to be extremely beneficial.
My Helpdesk
[Pr] Marath | [Pr] Lovisa | Jodah | Saskia | Najeela | Yisan | Lord Windgrace | Atraxa | Meren | Gisa and Geralf
"Breast"-Armor would totally be a thing , if women would actually prominently wear armor in high numbers :
Having slightly round breast shapes isnt even bad, deflecting is not really the "main" job of a armor (its main job being to protect you from "cuts" and blows with its inner cushion), the armor itself is protection, and wearing the armor is a statement itself too.
In old Rome, men would wear armor thats shaped like a muscular men, because it looked cool, women would do the same to follow what would look cool for them.
Men made giant **** pieces of armor to make their dicks look gigantic for gods sake.
A proper armor is totally fine protection, the breast shaped parts are no "real" problem at all, especially not for a proper smith, if thats what commonly is wished for by a lot of female warriors, you would TOTALLY get breast shaped armor made for them, just like men want to have ridiculous shaped armor made for them (even for their dongs).
Is boob plate female armor dangerous?
Female armor: Fantasy vs Reality
Yes i am very well educated on this topic (Hey dont look at me, its "purely educational")
----
So proper breast shaped armor, totally fine and looks AWESOME in a fantasy setting.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Actual soldiers generally wore rounded strips of metal and/or chain vests, because those worked better at keeping them alive.
Shad generally has well constructed arguments regarding medieval stuff so I'll watch his videos when I have more time to, but I'm going to go on record saying that if I'm going to take a claymore to the chest I want it to hit a rounded shell rather than a breastbone facing wedge of metal, no matter how much padding I have under the actual armour.
Also, as far as ridiculous fantasy aesthetics are concerned, I personally think Lyra Dawnbringer and the other "stained glass armour" arts from Dominaria are among the best design MTG has had for a while.
Art is life itself.
You're implying that men know just as much about sexism as women do, which is as baffling as saying that white people know just as much about racism as people of colour. I'd also recommend looking up the difference between systematic and individual sexism, because those are very different things.
Cruelty triumphing is "fine"? Cruelty is customarily considered a bad thing.
Garruk about to bash Liliana like a domestic violence situation, however, is an even worse thing because of the imagery involved.
I believe in the individual and judge people as individuals, not as groups.
Any human is an individual, not a group.
Thinking of groups is the most toxic a human can do to another, as it undermines and tries to devalue everything that makes up the individual that in its core is any human being.
Translating "domestic violence situation" into a magic card that is about 2 immensely powerful planeswalker fighting each other is utter nonsense, and is the perfect example of people trying to imply real life connections to something that has not even remotely any connection to such things.
Some people just try to see the absolute worst in everything and try to smear anybody that is not in their crosshair of "good" and "evil" people.
Its downright crazy as this road of thinking only leads to complete misguided hatred.
Some people might seek the good in things, what they enjoy and love, embracing the game for what it is, bringing people together.
Others just look for something to outrage about and the moment a person tries to set themselves above others and ignores the individual and puts people in boxes, they lost any connection to the real world.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Even on an individual level, you're not going to find very many men who've been impacted by institutional sexism because institutional power favours men pretty much every time.
Imagery is a thing that matters. Garruk looks like he's about to deliver the same kind of violence a great many women have been subjected to, whereas the reverse situation is... Garruk just kind of flat on his back while Liliana stands over him. Not Liliana about to deliver a punch or anything.
Triumph of Cruelty is passable as a piece of Magic art because it's not depicting things in a manner far too close to home for people who've been subject to domestic violence (unless you want to argue that PTSD isn't a real thing). Triumph of Ferocity is not, because it does.
Please be more specific instead of just saying "some people."
Theres no such thing as "favours men", thats as toxic as it gets to even have that opinion, especially if its complete bollocks.
It is however a very clear display of a political stands thats questionable at best and by itself sexism.
So i wont drive down this ballpark any further as it has nothing to do with the topic at hand anyway and will with guarantee only result in flame and *****posts.
Triumph of Cruelty can be interpreted as female violence using a mob (zombies) to do the violence in her name.
Its the same display of violence Triumph of Ferocity, its just 2 different stances of how these characters would approach to fight.
Non is less violent than the other, both are going to kill the other, and both are exceptional violent with deadly force and the worst intends possible.
Also, every form of violence can be translated to something a person might have experienced in real life. That alone shouldnt be a reason to make displaying that fantasy art somehow problematic at all.
Individuals have issues, they should deal with them.
Marking a specific "group" of people as more valuable or more "worth" protecting than other "groups" is just again the display of a form of group thinking thats extremely problematic and toxic.
If an individual has a problem with an artwork that in their mind looks somehow like "domestic violence" , then thats entirely their personal issue, and they can simply choose to not like the artwork and keep on with their lives.
If an artwork of a person getting Incinerated Disintegrate isnt a problem at all, then its downright ridiculous to make a artwork of a simple "punch" a giant outcry, its fantasy art after all, and real world thinking has no place in this fantasy.
If someone wants to be consistent in their logic of what art they claim to be problematic and what not, than at least say every form of violence is bad, not just specific subsets of violence against specific subset of groups of people, this kind of group thinking is a sickness.
Some people fits perfectly well, as it doesnt check any boxes.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
There are people who are statistically at greater risk than others. Hence why it's exceedingly tasteless to show Garruk about to punch Liliana after restraining her. Refusing to acknowledge social groups is a privilege afforded to people who don't have to think about the subject on a regular basis. Put another way, the fact that you're willing to reject the idea that groups matter is evidence that you've never been pigeonholed or disadvantaged based on gender or any other facet of identity.
Society and its norms are the sum of its actors. So when a company like Wizards produces art that's uncomfortably close to real-life gender-based violence (or they objectify women, or whatever else), they're contributing to an overarching trend. When they don't do that, they're not contributing to an overarching trend. But at the end of the day, it's always intellectually disingenuous to say "there are no such things as patterns, only a great many isolated incidents."
If you don't want to label groups, then why label a group as "some people"?
Its a companies job to produce a product, not make political arguments and especially not, push something specific for a subset of people.
Its exactly what people critique, rightfully, and they hate WotC doing this, as it has no logical reason, its just political agenda.
If VIOLENCE is bad, then ALL Violence is bad, not just a subset of violence someone claims upsets them personally.
The moment you cherry pick something and ignore the rest, you are doing nobody a favor, you just claim to be more important or above others, and thats just toxic and evil in nature.
Its a fantasy world after all, and if there is violence, then thats it.
I for once want to see boobs and cleavage in my female art. At least some, not all of them.
Why? I find it aesthetically. Basandra, Battle Seraph
And theres absolutely nothing wrong with boobs, but for whatever reason WotC clearly thinks boobs are inherently evil and female have to be flat.
If an artist paints a picture and the female happens to have boobs as they feel it looks great on that art, that should be fine, instead of not accepting that art and shrinking the boobs to make it acceptable ; which is just silly and somewhat discrimination against females that happen to have bigger boobs as that would be a crime or valued less in a made up social hierarchy of body objectivity (which is a thing for female characters and much less for male characters).
In the end they can do whatever they want, its a fantasy world, but doing so with a set intention and an agenda just makes it instrumental.
And its a very bad feeling if a COMPANY is trying to influence its customers and tries to influence the customer into portraying a specific "ideal" they want to display of a world they claim to follow in a real life connection.
Its a form of betrayal thats really hurting.
It kills the innocence of a fantasy world and FORCES a connection to the real world, that otherwise wouldnt exist, or just remotely.
The fact that WotC thinks that "representation" is a important deal in cards just produces a checklist of characteristics that have to be on cards, rather than producing good artwork, its following and pushing an agenda, and thats what "some people" really do not like at all.
It really comes down to companies should not meddle with real life politics, and stick to making the best possible product, instead of wiggling to the loudest cry baby that comes around, thats simply pathetic and produces an inferior product.
Some people is not a group, its literally an undefined group of everyone and that fits perfectly well.
WUBRG#BlackLotusMatterWUBRG
👮👮👮 #BlueLivesMatter 👮👮👮
Sorcery (c)
Choose one —
• Its a companies job to produce a product, not make political arguments and especially not, push something specific for a subset of people.
• I for once want to see boobs and cleavage in my female art.
"Your subset of humanity is still a subset of humanity."
— Hackworth
Art is life itself.
Have you considered that the market force of "sexual objectification doesn't play as well as it used to" might be behind Wizards' move?
If there's no room for nuance in your arguments, then we aren't going to get very far. The world isn't a simple place, and if you try to remove context from everything (for instance, seeing no difference between a man about to beat a woman and a bunch of zombies knocking a man to the floor), you're going to find you're left with arguments that don't match up with reality.
You also didn't address the fact that your willful blindness to something that members of minority groups see as being completely obvious is more indicative of a privileged mindset than anything else. The argument essentially boils down to "I personally don't see it so it must not exist." Nor did you address the accusation that you're willfully denying that patterns exist despite there being clear statistical trends (nothing but isolated incidents, perhaps?).
If you want to get into what businesses are "supposed" to be doing, then it's entirely one thing: Maximizing shareholder value. Your tastes do not line up with overall audience trends, so Wizards no longer caters to them. It's not political. They're just trying to make the most money they can, and they aren't going to do that by keeping the same art style as 20 years ago. That's the ultimate reason you don't see Earthbind-style art anymore, and Basandra-style art is nowhere near as prevalent as it used to be. Don't mix up the beliefs of the players with the beliefs of the company making this game, because the reasons each group holds its respective views are very, very different.
Wizards never betrayed you, because they never owed you anything to begin with. The only people who matter to a corporation are the shareholders, and unless you own enough shares for Hasbro to take notice of you, then you can either accept the shift in presentation or quit the game. That horse isn't going back into its stable.
If the group "some people" is undefined, then the argument carries no weight because there's absolutely no guarantee that those people even exist and aren't just made up for the sake of argument.
I am a bit confused on that one. She had a fight with Garruk and actually won in the end. Would it be a better fight if things were totally one-sided and Lili just pummeled Garruk into submission? I honestly think that was one of her stronger moments to recover from that and prevail in the end. Why would you not want to show that?
Hands to the sky
Give a round of applause
For the great Miss Y!