You make may good points but youre not seeing the bigger picture of what is actually happening. Many many players have left magic dude. There have been many stores shutting down and very very few new ones opening up. There are you tube channels that focused on mtg that have straight up shut down bc they quit the game. Many stores FNM's were dead prior to horizons. Talk to store owners about how difficult it is to have a store dedicated to MTG and how they hardly see anyone from the old days. Its very obvious how many ppl have left the game and have felt abandoned by wotc. This is akin to many star wars fans now. Its the same tune on a different instrument.
Anecdotal and irrelevant. Magic is making more money than ever and reaching more players than ever. Longtime players falling out of love with the game after 25 years isn't a sign of anything but 25 years passing. And any business that relies on a single product or product line that they have no control of to survive is a bad business run by people who have no idea what they're doing.
There is literally an article that came out yesterday by the NYT titled "Beach Body Tyranny Hurts Men Too"
Seems relevant to this conversation about the oversexualization of male characters
I would post a link but I don't want this post deleted. Shouldn't be hard to find.
A thought regarding the thread title - Maybe WoTC has seen the shapeshifter typing as an opportunity to present visually androgynous humanoids? I ask you to consider a scenario with me.
Maybe someone high up at WoTC made an equation in their minds and thought that "if one can shapeshift at will, into whatever gender they so choose as a result of their transformation, then maybe this physical change also constitutes a change in their sexuality as well - and therefore we will represent shapeshifters to be recognizable as androgynous".
I'm not saying this scenario was the logical steps taken to arrive at this representation of shapeshifters, but the scenario does point out the slippery slope of bad logic that is associating the shapeshifting mechanic with an equally fluid sexuality.
Without a background of how a given shapeshifter acquired this ability (magic or genetic) how are we to know how there ever becomes more shapeshifters? If it's genetic manipulation that allows the transformation, it begs the question of "how does this species reproduce?" And if WoTC's explanation for the shapeshifting ability is indeed based in genetics, then there would be an assumption of sexuality placed on this species - but we know well that WoTC won't delve into whether they reproduce asexually, sexually or anything else under the sun. WoTC would still not go into that detail, and would therefore continue the disconnect of information regarding whether this species even has a sexuality at all.
And if we can't know how this species reproduces, how then can WoTC confer our own human interpretation of sexuality onto these characters just because they shapeshift?
All this talk about underdressed men and overdressed women, and speculation of sexuality, and whether Wizards is sputtering and failing or succeeding masterfully... I just think the leather pants look dumb. Fashion faux pas.
I mean, he's a fairy. Fairies are often underdressed. Who cares?
All this talk about underdressed men and overdressed women, and speculation of sexuality, and whether Wizards is sputtering and failing or succeeding masterfully... I just think the leather pants look dumb. Fashion faux pas.
I mean, he's a fairy. Fairies are often underdressed. Who cares?
The thing that irks me about this isn't that the guy is kind of under dressed. It's more how smug Wizards comes across when they take their stance of putting girls in non-revealing and even shapeless clothes online sometimes because those things are "bad" but they have guys in revealing outfits all the time. It's eyeroll inducing and hypocritical to me.
Of course you can come to the conclusion that he hates in real life or at the very least dislikes the idea in real life but you cannot come to the conclusion that he wants those in real life to share the same fate because those are two different things and have two very different impacts on people. So I can agree that if a person dislikes some details about a character in a game are dislikes they have about people in real life, but the fate they wish upon either or are completely different. So by that its not hate speech. Unless he explicitly states that Oka should die and all homosexuals should die in real life along with him then yes its hate speech. But only saying Oka should die does not constitute hate speech and jumping to the conclusion you have is dangerous to say the least. I dont recall what his original post said but I dont remember him explicitly stating he wanted Oka to die BECAUSE he was effeminate or homosexual. I do remember him implying that it would be a useless character.
Equality and equity does not mean you balance out past injustices, it means everything is equal. Thats literally where the word comes from EQUAL in EQUALity. You cant have equality by doing more or less for some due to what was done in the past. That is not equality, maybe its a move towards equality sure but as it stand that is not equality. By that logic one can advocate all white people be enslaved to make up for the enslavement of african americans thus balance it out. Or the other way around all white people today have to give african americans their property to "balance it out" is that equality to you? Is that how you balance it out? give less to some and more to others..?
Provide evidence that the Men are more sexualized than women these days, and that it is equatable to the sexualization of women in MTG in the past.
This new planeswalker is the proof. Hes shirtless dude. Show me one shirtless female from the last two years. Show me art depicting an attractive shirtless female. you cant. So that right there is evidence that men are more sexualized at this moment. and you seem to think only women have been sexualized in magics history. Men have been sexualized for as long as the women have and now its only men who are persistently sexualized. Simply because the players dont see the men as sexual objects is a different story but they have been depicted just as naked, just as fit, just as sexualized for the entirety of the existence of magic so by that, how can you make the argument that now wotc is attempting to balance it out by showing less sexy women and more sexy men when both sexes have been portrayed as such since the beginning..?
What makes you feel threatened by this turn of policy?
Well ill point to the racist hiring practices from wotc as described by their own employees on twitter explicitly stating that they are hiring based on color. So thats a pretty blatant form of racism and political pandering that threatens the quality of the game at the very least. and is a threat to me and people who look like me. which is fine i dont mind them doing that but dont do it under the guise of equality and diversity. Its racist and a regression to jim crow like practices. Also when a store refuses to give service to a homosexual or a person of color no one who supports wotc doing this has the right to speak on the matter because they are in favor of it when its racist to some but cry when others are racist towards them. I say any business can do as they please and if you stand against the practice dont be selective or hypocritical.
You also have yet to demonstrate how WoTC's policies towards inclusion and diversity has made their products, creative and design, worse. How is the OG player-base excluded or abandoned by such practices??
Well for starters the puritanical art is bland. The complete and utter shunning of Terese Nielson is another one ive already brought up. The inherent hypocrisy that comes with inclusion and diversity ideology is another one ive already brought up. The story line has been pretty bland lately and unsatisfying as compared to before all this started. And i cant imagine their focus on inclusion and diversity hasnt affected game development any since the complete and utter failure of hogaak in modern points to just straight up negligence. The MPL is a joke because instead of supporting their die hard OG players like Reid Duke, LSV, jensen, etc they made a trans woman the face of it. I can keep going man i really can just keep this list going but i think you should get the picture by now unless youre being willfully blind.
You make may good points but youre not seeing the bigger picture of what is actually happening. Many many players have left magic dude. There have been many stores shutting down and very very few new ones opening up. There are you tube channels that focused on mtg that have straight up shut down bc they quit the game. Many stores FNM's were dead prior to horizons. Talk to store owners about how difficult it is to have a store dedicated to MTG and how they hardly see anyone from the old days. Its very obvious how many ppl have left the game and have felt abandoned by wotc. This is akin to many star wars fans now. Its the same tune on a different instrument.
You say that unless the poster had explicitly called for Oko's death and all lgbtq+ ppl, it cannot be assumed that's what he meant. However, homophobia and racism frequently are implicit and casual, so if someone has a problem with a fictional lgbtq+ character, then it's reasonable for us to think they have a problem with actual lgbtq+ ppl. Yes, it's arguably not hate speech, but it cannot be denied that such language is phobic in some form. That's what other posters have been saying. And your stance that it's dangerous to assume the poster's actions against a fictional character and a real person are the same, I can say that the poster feeling ok about hating a character based off sexuality would lead to them looking down on real people based on sexuality. If fictional lgbtq+ characters are their only exposure and they don't like them, they can apply that same feeling to any real person they encounter later.
I'm not sure I quite understand what you want regarding equality, your logic seems to go to the extreme when presenting any example or responding to a comment, like your slavery example.
Magic has always ebbed and flowed when it comes to art styles and storylines. We are in the midst of a time where Creative is allowing more male skin to be shown where before, it would be female. That's fine. Sometimes equality takes time to truly equal out. That's what some of the other posters have been saying. It seems you want each set to have the same amount of skin shown for both sexes, but sometimes flavor and story have other needs. And as another pointed out, WotC does tend to over do it when they feel they need to represent something or correct themselves, so that's why the balance for male to female skin has stayed tipped toward male recently. They also want to get more women to play magic, so making male characters attractive to them can also play a part.
Your point of WotC stating they'd hire non-white people is not diversity for the sake of diversity. WotC looked at itself and realized it's very monochromatic, so they wanted to be vocal about its commitment to hire more nonwhite ppl. It never said that white ppl need not apply or that white resumes would be discarded. WotC will still hire white ppl. There's nothing wrong with seeking a different voice or view for your employment. That's not a threat to white people or yourself if a company acknowledges its shortfalls and seeks to give a minority PoV a chance. And it's not racist either. The employee that posted about the whole diversity thing, while he could have phrased things differently, def didn't come across as 'If you're white, don't apply.'
On inclusion and diversity, your comment about the MPL being a joke now that a trans woman is the face is problematic at best, and transphobic at worst. What about having a trans woman as the face is detrimental? I would think it's pretty cool that a minority demographic, especially the trans community, can be seen at high levels of play and be just as comfortable and accepted. And then you just speculate that inclusion and diversity have effected development, citing Hogaak, which is a huge stretch, and for the story being bland. The story has been fairly formulaic for years. Since WotC went away from true books, we haven't had stories with much nuance or depth. Saying that inclusion and diversity have dampened the story is using a recent occurance (within the last couple years) for a problem that has been around far longer.
All this talk about underdressed men and overdressed women, and speculation of sexuality, and whether Wizards is sputtering and failing or succeeding masterfully... I just think the leather pants look dumb. Fashion faux pas.
I mean, he's a fairy. Fairies are often underdressed. Who cares?
The thing that irks me about this isn't that the guy is kind of under dressed. It's more how smug Wizards comes across when they take their stance of putting girls in non-revealing and even shapeless clothes online sometimes because those things are "bad" but they have guys in revealing outfits all the time. It's eyeroll inducing and hypocritical to me.
Guys are not overly sexualized compared to females. Liliana is a prominent character who plays off of her sexuality, Oko is the only Planeswalker I would call sexual on the male side and he's likely to show up very rarely in comparison to Liliana.
Edit: I'll add that the general trend of this topic is really pointing out why WotC is making the right call pushing for more diverse characters.
Im so glad you said this because here in lies the crux of what I have been trying to say.
Since when do you or anyone else be it WoTC or the majority of the community care what “sweatyneck beards” want? Im pretty sure “neck beards” dont want homosexual characters shoved in their faces and as the faces of their game.
This is where I stopped reading, because I’m fairly certain the crux of what you’re saying is “I am a homophobe, and I represent a silent majority of MtG fandom.” You are, but you do not.
You also have a serious misunderstanding of the word equity, as it most certainly does NOT mean equal.
The language is not phobic either because hes not showing fear of anything. I agree its hateful to want the PW to die for said reason but it doesnt constitute hate speech nor is it phobic. It isnt reasonable to assume that he wants people in real to die bc wanting a fictional character to die is far different than wanting real people to die. These are two vastly different things and you cannot base that assumption off of such weak evidence.
If he wants a lgbtq PW to die it very well could mean that he looks down upon an lgbtq individual in real life but that doesnt mean he wants that person to be harmed or dead. You simply cant make that jump bc you are making a very very heavy accusation here which i dont think you quite understand the severity of.
And my logic about equality and making the extreme comparisons to slavery seems to maybe evaded you. The argument was made that equality called for a balancing out of past injustices by holding one party In higher regard or given special or greater attention than the other. This I argue is not equality and is a very very slippery slope and flawed practice. Why? Because who decides when the the situation is balanced out? When can we expect for equal treatment of all parties? The argument thus was that since women have generally throughout magics history been objectified more so than men then now in order to balance this out, women will be objectified less while men can be objectified to some degree. So I argue that this is NOT equality and its extending protections to one party while neglecting the other. On the same token its taking the enjoyment of some for the sake of others emotions and feelings in order to right past injustices. So i use the analogy that if we use this logic then we could justify taking from white people to give black people. Its the same concept on a more serious scale. An when looked at in this way you can see very clearly that it is not equality and clearly has an inherent flaw both in its ideology and in application.
on the MPL and hiring practices.
Can you tell me with a straight face that hiring based on color for any reason leads to the best quality work and products? Or does hiring based on qualifications and merit? And by that can you honestly say that if they hire based on race instead of qualifications that the quality of work would be the same than the other way around? And dont try to reinterpret what he said to fit your argument he straight up said “we are too white we need color” he never said anything about still looking at merit or qualifications.
Lastly I never said it the mpl sucked or was a joke because of putting a trans as the face. I said that not including their beloved clearly more qualified players in the MPL and opting for pandering was a joke.
But then again they hire based on color and would rather have the trans players instead of the life long die hard players in the mpl. Both of these things send the message thats its diversity first and all else second. And that is the problem. Honestly I feel bad for all the players that have grinded for 10-15 years to only be pushed on the back burner for the sake of diversity. That was despicable of them to do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RUAffinityUR GMono Green StompyG CEldrazi TronC URWJeskai GeistWRU WRBoros BurnRW BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
Who is this hypothetical third person you think I’m referring to? I’m talking about you; you are a homophobe. One of the telltale signs of a homophobe is the disingenuous argument that homophobia is expressly about fear. It is not, and I suspect you know better.
You still have yet to demonstrate a proper understanding of the word ‘equity.’ Your misguided preoccupation with the distinct and separate term ‘equality’ instead isn’t the effective rebuttal you presume it to be.
gay, straight, what the hell does it even matter? if he's gay, great grand wonderful way to represent that demographic in the game and make a subtle push for equality. if he's straight, great grand wonderful status quo maintained. jesus. maybe this guy just doesn't like shirts? i mean **** me. i don't like socks, so if i was ever depicted on a card i probably wouldn't be wearing any.
stop being part of the problem with gaming culture.
Firstly that response wasnt to you so im not sure why you thought it was
secondly, you have no idea what equity means because if you did you would realize it means impartial, equal.. and giving one group more to make up for past injustice also isnt equity as its being partial to one group instead of impartial to either or. And if youre attempting to use equity in sense of the make up of a whole I again will reiterate that this isnt a zero sum game so that wouldnt work in this case and would lead to many issues as I have already outlined IE who decides when enough is enough? When can we expect for the balance to be equal? And who decides this?
Look up the definition of words before acting like you know what they mean.
Lastly, you and many others of your mindset have the bad habit of redefining words to fit your argument just like youre attempting to do with the word equity and just like has been done with phobia. Its not disingenuous to stick to a words definition and use words for their actual meaning. in fact its disingenuous to redefine the word to fit what you want it to just like you are doing with phobia now. Im not afraid of the lgbt community nor do i hate it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern RUAffinityUR GMono Green StompyG CEldrazi TronC URWJeskai GeistWRU WRBoros BurnRW BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
Yet you argue awfully hard against a character who might (not even necessarily is) have themes along LGBT+ lines simply because of those themes. And pretty girls still exist, whining about a seeming lack of them just looks pretty silly. Oko is the only male Planeswalker who is promiscuously dressed, while Liliana has been around for ages.
I havent said a single thing against Oko being lgbt. Please find one example in anything ive said that has been against Oko being lgbt.
i have said however that a characters sexual orientation shouldnt be the highlight or the emphasis of that character. I have also stated that this emphasis on “diversity” has affected game and lore quality. But ive never said that I dont want gay characters or that I dont want Oko to be lgbt. Not a single time.
You and the other user have misunderstood my arguement over and over again and its because youre not reading clearly what I am saying or thinking about what im saying. Because if you did you would have noticed that I havent once expressed any hate or anger towards Oko being lgbt. Not a single time.
Saying that having diverse characters makes the game and lore worse is a pretty telling statement, even if you somehow think it's innocuous. Your words speak clearly even if you try and obfuscate your intent.
Firstly that response wasnt to you so im not sure why you thought it was
secondly, you have no idea what equity means because if you did you would realize it means impartial, equal.. and giving one group more to make up for past injustice also isnt equity as its being partial to one group instead of impartial to either or. And if youre attempting to use equity in sense of the make up of a whole I again will reiterate that this isnt a zero sum game so that wouldnt work in this case and would lead to many issues as I have already outlined IE who decides when enough is enough? When can we expect for the balance to be equal? And who decides this?
Look up the definition of words before acting like you know what they mean.
Lastly, you and many others of your mindset have the bad habit of redefining words to fit your argument just like youre attempting to do with the word equity and just like has been done with phobia. Its not disingenuous to stick to a words definition and use words for their actual meaning. in fact its disingenuous to redefine the word to fit what you want it to just like you are doing with phobia now. Im not afraid of the lgbt community nor do i hate it.
I’m a teacher in a low income school district, my entire job is combating inequity. Luckily for you, it does not take a college education to search Google for a definition of the term 'homophobia':
--- ho·mo·pho·bi·a
noun
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
---
I'm not seeing anything about fear. Are you ready to admit that you have no idea what you’re talking about, or is there room in your mouth for both feet?
Here, let me break it down for you with a simple picture, like I do with my 8th graders.
Increasingly trite as it may be, this is the difference between equity and equality. You have a choice: do you accept that giving the disadvantaged child (or social analogue) more help is fair, or do you complain that the taller one didn't get as many boxes?
You and the other user have misunderstood my arguement over and over again and its because youre not reading clearly what I am saying or thinking about what im saying. Because if you did you would have noticed that I havent once expressed any hate or anger towards Oko being lgbt. Not a single time.
Let's break this down. I'll start backwards to see if that helps. Let's say person X doesn't want actual gay people to be killed for being gay. How likely would it be for X to then go and say they want a fictional person to die because they're gay? Not very likely, and if they did, it would be reasonable to tell them to re-examine that statement since there is a logical inconsistency of holding both views. Either X does in fact want actual gay people to suffer violence, or they don't and so should not want fictional gay people to suffer violence either. Anything else is cognitive dissonance, or hypocrisy even, and we know how much you hate that.
The whole basis of your argument is an unprincipled distinction you're making between fictional and real gay people, that violent statements about one sort can be considered "hate speech," but not the other. This isn't a true formal distinction, however, but rather a difference of degree. While the degree of difference is significant, you didn't take the position that the phrase "hate speech" is a hyperbolic characterization of the post in question. That position perhaps would have been defensible, but that ship has sailed. Instead you have repeatedly argued that saying a fictional character should die for being gay doesn't imply that one also wants real gay people to die for being gay. But it does imply just that, as can be seen by the above paragraph. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this plain and clear implication reflects on your extreme bias.
I will advocate that the only shirtless dudes in mtg art must be of hulk/almost not human type of male characters(or fat ones). With female there was a push to not show over sexualized woman in gaming and comics. Soo we had a lot of woman wearing “warrior” underwaer (or warrior-bras with pants) to woman that shows almost no skin and a couple sizes too short (on bras department). I mean, ok it was done and advocated soo woman did not had to feel shame for not fitting on this over sexualized stereotype. But lets be honest: not every male has the same body as oko, garruk, Ajani, etc not all males have a thic body specially in the nerd-gaming community.
Do you think it is fair to represent men as over sexualized in this kind of media? Do you think that every mtg player has a 3+pack belly, do you think that all mtg players are thick with model’ body type?
Time for wotc stop being sexist and start to treat men and woman equal. If they don’t make oversexualized woman art in the game then don’t do it for men, simple.
About oko as a character: can we plz don’t make fan fic just yet. We all get that his back story can fit as a metaphor for drag/transexualism but there is 0 evidence in the article that can suport oko as being straight or gay. It is non sense to discuss this now.
If in the story he turn out as gay or has some feminine traits then ok.
About equity I mean there is no point on claiming that it is not, they could make 20 gay characters in a row and it would be equity. Would it be forced? Ye if they did 20 in a row yes. Is it forced when they do one every 5 or só blocks? No I think not. I m more upset when they change old characters to do those things than when they just creates a new one. If Oko is gay be happy that they made a new character instead of making (idk) Garruk a gay man that goes out in the multiverse hunting the perfect male to ****, or if they make real the fanfic of Chandra and Nissa being lesbic lovers or if they turn Jace into a gay that likes to **** other men and then erase their memory.
Imo I think ral was the best exemple of them introducing a character and then saying he/she is gay. Being gay was not important for his character development, but being gay was important for storytelling (kinda), just because he was worried about his lover during the war. Although wotc pussied out to make their relationship more meaningful in the way that it was secret because only of the guild status (and could have been also to hide the fact for some conservative portion of ravnica’s population (as the gruul clans) and not be seen with bad eyes by other members of their guild who might try to shame them)(that story line would be realy nice. I have some gay friends that had a hard time about getting going public and I know that this kind of story would make them happy, well lost opportunity cause homophobia is worst then commiting genocide)
I mean, the issue with your examples is that most of those characters could be bi or gay without it being a conflict with past actions. There isn't any reason to make exclusively new characters. Especially when plenty of gay people here and now have experience with the opposite sex before realizing they're gay.
Can you tell me with a straight face that hiring based on color for any reason leads to the best quality work and products? Or does hiring based on qualifications and merit? And by that can you honestly say that if they hire based on race instead of qualifications that the quality of work would be the same than the other way around? And dont try to reinterpret what he said to fit your argument he straight up said “we are too white we need color” he never said anything about still looking at merit or qualifications.
Please can you point me at those nonwhite people without merits that have been hired and are ruining wotc? Because without names of examples, it just looks like you have a distorted view of reality and you are talking out of your ass
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How i feel about competitive players and casual players in EDH: The competitive are german tourists, the casual are italian tourists, both in a italian beach. The italians asking themselves "why are the germans here?" make a legitimate question, the answer is because the beach is beautiful, no matter the country you came from. The italians wanting to ban the germans are dumb, because if the germans pay for their stay and follow the rules like everyone else, they have the right to be in the beach. Hovewer, if the germans started to ask themselves "why are the italians here?"... they would be dumb as hell.
Again I didnt say that. I said when they make it a main focus of a character or when they focus on diversity for sake of diversity that the lore and game quality suffers bc the quality is no longer the focus. Are you not able to read?
And also im glad you couldnt find a single example of me saying anything against lgbt characters. YOU made the inference because you chose to not read carefully what I have actually said.
@flossed beaver
Homophobia - irrational fear of or aversion, or dislike. Three qualities I dont have. To point out that a focus on diversity for diversities sake harms the quality is not homophobic or wrong. Its true when you drop your focus on something in favor of something else the first thing will likely lack in the quality it had or could have. I dont see what the issue is with pointing this out.
As for your picture of equity. Thats not what is being proposed here. Again like i said this sint a zero sum game. The picture you show is a zero sum game in that all children now can see over the fence. In this situation what is the point to which we stop giving the parties in need a booster seat? When does wotc decide okay enough is enough now lets give everyone the same. Because in your picture that child with two boxes will grow up and so will the other one then both will no longer need the box. So I propose the question again at what point does this impartial help stop?
See you dont understand what I am saying here. You think you do but its flying over your head. The current situation with what wotc is doing one of equity bc like i have been pointing out there is no measure as to what constitutes the “top of the fence” so to say.
Equity implies a percentage that must be reached. Like stocks of a company or the top of the fence this situation is not one of equity and you would be hard pressed to argue this point bc its for the most part impossible to gauge what 100% is here.
Anyways, im gonna bow out now bc its very clear that you cant say anything at all that can perceived to be against a minority class here or its taken as if you are a hobophobe, racist, sexist etc. no matter how much reason you have.
I'm just really confused by the idea that there are no sexy women in Magic anymore. Yes, there are quite a few shirtless men depicted in the art. Most of the time, they aren't really sexualized (only in very few cases like River Merfolk, Rakish Heir, Beastcaller Savant, and Enthralling Victor, and now the new Planeswalker). And many men DO walk around shirtless in real life; women don't.
Are fans really expecting Wizards of the Coast to print topless female artwork on a card game in 2019?
Nevermind the fact that this character most likely uses his good looks for manipulation and seduction. If they wanted to make a female character like that, they would. But that trope has been done to death whereas we rarely see a male character as the seducer. So if anything, fans should be happy and excited Wizards is doing something rarely done before.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Everything falls apart. But living things fall apart in the most fascinating ways."
—Mowagh the Gwyllion, Fang Skulkin
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Anecdotal and irrelevant. Magic is making more money than ever and reaching more players than ever. Longtime players falling out of love with the game after 25 years isn't a sign of anything but 25 years passing. And any business that relies on a single product or product line that they have no control of to survive is a bad business run by people who have no idea what they're doing.
—Mowagh the Gwyllion, Fang Skulkin
Seems relevant to this conversation about the oversexualization of male characters
I would post a link but I don't want this post deleted. Shouldn't be hard to find.
A thought regarding the thread title - Maybe WoTC has seen the shapeshifter typing as an opportunity to present visually androgynous humanoids? I ask you to consider a scenario with me.
Maybe someone high up at WoTC made an equation in their minds and thought that "if one can shapeshift at will, into whatever gender they so choose as a result of their transformation, then maybe this physical change also constitutes a change in their sexuality as well - and therefore we will represent shapeshifters to be recognizable as androgynous".
I'm not saying this scenario was the logical steps taken to arrive at this representation of shapeshifters, but the scenario does point out the slippery slope of bad logic that is associating the shapeshifting mechanic with an equally fluid sexuality.
Without a background of how a given shapeshifter acquired this ability (magic or genetic) how are we to know how there ever becomes more shapeshifters? If it's genetic manipulation that allows the transformation, it begs the question of "how does this species reproduce?" And if WoTC's explanation for the shapeshifting ability is indeed based in genetics, then there would be an assumption of sexuality placed on this species - but we know well that WoTC won't delve into whether they reproduce asexually, sexually or anything else under the sun. WoTC would still not go into that detail, and would therefore continue the disconnect of information regarding whether this species even has a sexuality at all.
And if we can't know how this species reproduces, how then can WoTC confer our own human interpretation of sexuality onto these characters just because they shapeshift?
http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/magic-fundamentals/magic-general/334931-what-is-the-most-pimp-card-deck-youve-seen-or?comment=5361
Commander
RGOmnath, Locus of Rage Grenades! EDHGR
UWSygg's Defense, EDH - Voltron & ControlWU
BUGMimeoplasm EDH ft. Ifnir Cycling-discard comboBUG
WBTeysa, Connoisseur of CullingBW
BWSelenia & Recruiter of the Guard suicice combo EDHWB
UBRWGO-Kagachi - 5 Color Enchantments - EDHUBRWG
I mean, he's a fairy. Fairies are often underdressed. Who cares?
Low-power cube enthusiast!
My 1570 card cube (no longer updated)
My 415 Peasant+ Artifact and Enchantment Cube
Ever-Expanding "Just throw it in" cube.
Thats actually a really well thought our analysis of this. Sound reasoning youve brought forth with this and I cant disagree with what youve said.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
The thing that irks me about this isn't that the guy is kind of under dressed. It's more how smug Wizards comes across when they take their stance of putting girls in non-revealing and even shapeless clothes online sometimes because those things are "bad" but they have guys in revealing outfits all the time. It's eyeroll inducing and hypocritical to me.
You say that unless the poster had explicitly called for Oko's death and all lgbtq+ ppl, it cannot be assumed that's what he meant. However, homophobia and racism frequently are implicit and casual, so if someone has a problem with a fictional lgbtq+ character, then it's reasonable for us to think they have a problem with actual lgbtq+ ppl. Yes, it's arguably not hate speech, but it cannot be denied that such language is phobic in some form. That's what other posters have been saying. And your stance that it's dangerous to assume the poster's actions against a fictional character and a real person are the same, I can say that the poster feeling ok about hating a character based off sexuality would lead to them looking down on real people based on sexuality. If fictional lgbtq+ characters are their only exposure and they don't like them, they can apply that same feeling to any real person they encounter later.
I'm not sure I quite understand what you want regarding equality, your logic seems to go to the extreme when presenting any example or responding to a comment, like your slavery example.
Magic has always ebbed and flowed when it comes to art styles and storylines. We are in the midst of a time where Creative is allowing more male skin to be shown where before, it would be female. That's fine. Sometimes equality takes time to truly equal out. That's what some of the other posters have been saying. It seems you want each set to have the same amount of skin shown for both sexes, but sometimes flavor and story have other needs. And as another pointed out, WotC does tend to over do it when they feel they need to represent something or correct themselves, so that's why the balance for male to female skin has stayed tipped toward male recently. They also want to get more women to play magic, so making male characters attractive to them can also play a part.
Your point of WotC stating they'd hire non-white people is not diversity for the sake of diversity. WotC looked at itself and realized it's very monochromatic, so they wanted to be vocal about its commitment to hire more nonwhite ppl. It never said that white ppl need not apply or that white resumes would be discarded. WotC will still hire white ppl. There's nothing wrong with seeking a different voice or view for your employment. That's not a threat to white people or yourself if a company acknowledges its shortfalls and seeks to give a minority PoV a chance. And it's not racist either. The employee that posted about the whole diversity thing, while he could have phrased things differently, def didn't come across as 'If you're white, don't apply.'
On inclusion and diversity, your comment about the MPL being a joke now that a trans woman is the face is problematic at best, and transphobic at worst. What about having a trans woman as the face is detrimental? I would think it's pretty cool that a minority demographic, especially the trans community, can be seen at high levels of play and be just as comfortable and accepted. And then you just speculate that inclusion and diversity have effected development, citing Hogaak, which is a huge stretch, and for the story being bland. The story has been fairly formulaic for years. Since WotC went away from true books, we haven't had stories with much nuance or depth. Saying that inclusion and diversity have dampened the story is using a recent occurance (within the last couple years) for a problem that has been around far longer.
Guys are not overly sexualized compared to females. Liliana is a prominent character who plays off of her sexuality, Oko is the only Planeswalker I would call sexual on the male side and he's likely to show up very rarely in comparison to Liliana.
Edit: I'll add that the general trend of this topic is really pointing out why WotC is making the right call pushing for more diverse characters.
This is where I stopped reading, because I’m fairly certain the crux of what you’re saying is “I am a homophobe, and I represent a silent majority of MtG fandom.” You are, but you do not.
You also have a serious misunderstanding of the word equity, as it most certainly does NOT mean equal.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
If he wants a lgbtq PW to die it very well could mean that he looks down upon an lgbtq individual in real life but that doesnt mean he wants that person to be harmed or dead. You simply cant make that jump bc you are making a very very heavy accusation here which i dont think you quite understand the severity of.
And my logic about equality and making the extreme comparisons to slavery seems to maybe evaded you. The argument was made that equality called for a balancing out of past injustices by holding one party In higher regard or given special or greater attention than the other. This I argue is not equality and is a very very slippery slope and flawed practice. Why? Because who decides when the the situation is balanced out? When can we expect for equal treatment of all parties? The argument thus was that since women have generally throughout magics history been objectified more so than men then now in order to balance this out, women will be objectified less while men can be objectified to some degree. So I argue that this is NOT equality and its extending protections to one party while neglecting the other. On the same token its taking the enjoyment of some for the sake of others emotions and feelings in order to right past injustices. So i use the analogy that if we use this logic then we could justify taking from white people to give black people. Its the same concept on a more serious scale. An when looked at in this way you can see very clearly that it is not equality and clearly has an inherent flaw both in its ideology and in application.
on the MPL and hiring practices.
Can you tell me with a straight face that hiring based on color for any reason leads to the best quality work and products? Or does hiring based on qualifications and merit? And by that can you honestly say that if they hire based on race instead of qualifications that the quality of work would be the same than the other way around? And dont try to reinterpret what he said to fit your argument he straight up said “we are too white we need color” he never said anything about still looking at merit or qualifications.
Lastly I never said it the mpl sucked or was a joke because of putting a trans as the face. I said that not including their beloved clearly more qualified players in the MPL and opting for pandering was a joke.
But then again they hire based on color and would rather have the trans players instead of the life long die hard players in the mpl. Both of these things send the message thats its diversity first and all else second. And that is the problem. Honestly I feel bad for all the players that have grinded for 10-15 years to only be pushed on the back burner for the sake of diversity. That was despicable of them to do.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
You still have yet to demonstrate a proper understanding of the word ‘equity.’ Your misguided preoccupation with the distinct and separate term ‘equality’ instead isn’t the effective rebuttal you presume it to be.
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
he's a shirtless skinny dude.
gay, straight, what the hell does it even matter? if he's gay, great grand wonderful way to represent that demographic in the game and make a subtle push for equality. if he's straight, great grand wonderful status quo maintained. jesus. maybe this guy just doesn't like shirts? i mean **** me. i don't like socks, so if i was ever depicted on a card i probably wouldn't be wearing any.
stop being part of the problem with gaming culture.
secondly, you have no idea what equity means because if you did you would realize it means impartial, equal.. and giving one group more to make up for past injustice also isnt equity as its being partial to one group instead of impartial to either or. And if youre attempting to use equity in sense of the make up of a whole I again will reiterate that this isnt a zero sum game so that wouldnt work in this case and would lead to many issues as I have already outlined IE who decides when enough is enough? When can we expect for the balance to be equal? And who decides this?
Look up the definition of words before acting like you know what they mean.
Lastly, you and many others of your mindset have the bad habit of redefining words to fit your argument just like youre attempting to do with the word equity and just like has been done with phobia. Its not disingenuous to stick to a words definition and use words for their actual meaning. in fact its disingenuous to redefine the word to fit what you want it to just like you are doing with phobia now. Im not afraid of the lgbt community nor do i hate it.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
i have said however that a characters sexual orientation shouldnt be the highlight or the emphasis of that character. I have also stated that this emphasis on “diversity” has affected game and lore quality. But ive never said that I dont want gay characters or that I dont want Oko to be lgbt. Not a single time.
You and the other user have misunderstood my arguement over and over again and its because youre not reading clearly what I am saying or thinking about what im saying. Because if you did you would have noticed that I havent once expressed any hate or anger towards Oko being lgbt. Not a single time.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
I’m a teacher in a low income school district, my entire job is combating inequity. Luckily for you, it does not take a college education to search Google for a definition of the term 'homophobia':
---
ho·mo·pho·bi·a
noun
dislike of or prejudice against homosexual people.
---
I'm not seeing anything about fear. Are you ready to admit that you have no idea what you’re talking about, or is there room in your mouth for both feet?
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Increasingly trite as it may be, this is the difference between equity and equality. You have a choice: do you accept that giving the disadvantaged child (or social analogue) more help is fair, or do you complain that the taller one didn't get as many boxes?
---
#BLM
#DefundThePolice
Let's break this down. I'll start backwards to see if that helps. Let's say person X doesn't want actual gay people to be killed for being gay. How likely would it be for X to then go and say they want a fictional person to die because they're gay? Not very likely, and if they did, it would be reasonable to tell them to re-examine that statement since there is a logical inconsistency of holding both views. Either X does in fact want actual gay people to suffer violence, or they don't and so should not want fictional gay people to suffer violence either. Anything else is cognitive dissonance, or hypocrisy even, and we know how much you hate that.
The whole basis of your argument is an unprincipled distinction you're making between fictional and real gay people, that violent statements about one sort can be considered "hate speech," but not the other. This isn't a true formal distinction, however, but rather a difference of degree. While the degree of difference is significant, you didn't take the position that the phrase "hate speech" is a hyperbolic characterization of the post in question. That position perhaps would have been defensible, but that ship has sailed. Instead you have repeatedly argued that saying a fictional character should die for being gay doesn't imply that one also wants real gay people to die for being gay. But it does imply just that, as can be seen by the above paragraph. The fact that you refuse to acknowledge this plain and clear implication reflects on your extreme bias.
Do you think it is fair to represent men as over sexualized in this kind of media? Do you think that every mtg player has a 3+pack belly, do you think that all mtg players are thick with model’ body type?
Time for wotc stop being sexist and start to treat men and woman equal. If they don’t make oversexualized woman art in the game then don’t do it for men, simple.
If in the story he turn out as gay or has some feminine traits then ok.
About equity I mean there is no point on claiming that it is not, they could make 20 gay characters in a row and it would be equity. Would it be forced? Ye if they did 20 in a row yes. Is it forced when they do one every 5 or só blocks? No I think not. I m more upset when they change old characters to do those things than when they just creates a new one. If Oko is gay be happy that they made a new character instead of making (idk) Garruk a gay man that goes out in the multiverse hunting the perfect male to ****, or if they make real the fanfic of Chandra and Nissa being lesbic lovers or if they turn Jace into a gay that likes to **** other men and then erase their memory.
Imo I think ral was the best exemple of them introducing a character and then saying he/she is gay. Being gay was not important for his character development, but being gay was important for storytelling (kinda), just because he was worried about his lover during the war. Although wotc pussied out to make their relationship more meaningful in the way that it was secret because only of the guild status (and could have been also to hide the fact for some conservative portion of ravnica’s population (as the gruul clans) and not be seen with bad eyes by other members of their guild who might try to shame them)(that story line would be realy nice. I have some gay friends that had a hard time about getting going public and I know that this kind of story would make them happy, well lost opportunity cause homophobia is worst then commiting genocide)
Please can you point me at those nonwhite people without merits that have been hired and are ruining wotc? Because without names of examples, it just looks like you have a distorted view of reality and you are talking out of your ass
Again I didnt say that. I said when they make it a main focus of a character or when they focus on diversity for sake of diversity that the lore and game quality suffers bc the quality is no longer the focus. Are you not able to read?
And also im glad you couldnt find a single example of me saying anything against lgbt characters. YOU made the inference because you chose to not read carefully what I have actually said.
@flossed beaver
Homophobia - irrational fear of or aversion, or dislike. Three qualities I dont have. To point out that a focus on diversity for diversities sake harms the quality is not homophobic or wrong. Its true when you drop your focus on something in favor of something else the first thing will likely lack in the quality it had or could have. I dont see what the issue is with pointing this out.
As for your picture of equity. Thats not what is being proposed here. Again like i said this sint a zero sum game. The picture you show is a zero sum game in that all children now can see over the fence. In this situation what is the point to which we stop giving the parties in need a booster seat? When does wotc decide okay enough is enough now lets give everyone the same. Because in your picture that child with two boxes will grow up and so will the other one then both will no longer need the box. So I propose the question again at what point does this impartial help stop?
See you dont understand what I am saying here. You think you do but its flying over your head. The current situation with what wotc is doing one of equity bc like i have been pointing out there is no measure as to what constitutes the “top of the fence” so to say.
Equity implies a percentage that must be reached. Like stocks of a company or the top of the fence this situation is not one of equity and you would be hard pressed to argue this point bc its for the most part impossible to gauge what 100% is here.
Anyways, im gonna bow out now bc its very clear that you cant say anything at all that can perceived to be against a minority class here or its taken as if you are a hobophobe, racist, sexist etc. no matter how much reason you have.
RUAffinityUR
GMono Green StompyG
CEldrazi TronC
URWJeskai GeistWRU
WRBoros BurnRW
BRWMardu PyromancerWRB
Are fans really expecting Wizards of the Coast to print topless female artwork on a card game in 2019?
Do fans really consider Liliana, the Necromancer, Niambi, Faithful Healer, Bloodhall Priest, or Vivien Reid as not depicting attractive women on the art?
Nevermind the fact that this character most likely uses his good looks for manipulation and seduction. If they wanted to make a female character like that, they would. But that trope has been done to death whereas we rarely see a male character as the seducer. So if anything, fans should be happy and excited Wizards is doing something rarely done before.
—Mowagh the Gwyllion, Fang Skulkin