I linked yesterday to Tempest’s post about the disproportionate number of scantily-clad females on Realms of Fantasy’s covers, and the mermaid gracing the new issue of the relaunched ‘zine. Last night, Doug Cohen posted a response.
Doug is the new art director for Realms, as well as being the long time editorial assistant for the magazine. I’ve worked with him a few times, and he struck me as a generally nice guy, one who cared a lot about the magazine and was always willing to go the extra mile, reading and commenting on my stories even when they were getting an automatic pass up to the editor.
Unfortunately, sometimes it’s the nicest guys who fail the hardest when it comes to discussions of sexism, racism, and so on. “I’m a nice guy! How dare you call me sexist!” [Insert image of face-melting fury at the injustice of such a horrific accusation here.] We then get to hear all about how these accusations are utter nonsense, and don’t you dare judge me, and the accuser is unfair and angry and mean.
You know what? I don’t give a damn about the Doug/Tempest show. Nor, at the moment, do I care whether Doug is a nice guy. I care about whether a magazine I love is going to continue using covers like the one to the right. (From June 06 and my second publication in Realms.)
Doug talks about how much he cares about the magazine, how hard he’s worked, and so on. He explains that Shawna and Warren both approved the mermaid cover. (We can’t blame Doug, because other people signed off on it.) This isn’t about Doug, damn it. It’s about a trend, one which he himself acknowledges:
[D]uring the Sovereign Media years, quite a number of them featured chicks in chain mail - make that hot chicks in chain mail - make that big breasted hot chicks in chain mail - with armor that often revealed far more than it covered … It irked a number a writers to no end. Guess what? It irked Shawna too, but she had no control over the artwork, so whacha gonna do but grit your teeth and endure? Did it irk me too, some of you might be wondering? Yes, but not as much. By the time I joined RoF in May of 2005, the magazine was in the midst of shifting away from these covers….
There are people, myself included, who have been watching to see how Realms would move forward under new management and whether this trend would change. To see whether Realms would continue the boobs and chainmail cliches. We got one out of two.
Doug defends the cover of the current issue by saying, in part:
…last time I checked, mermaids tend to shun clothes. And last time I checked, the chicks in chainmail covers are far more offensive than this. And last time I checked, nudity does occur in artwork.
All true. All utterly missing the point. The logic simply doesn’t work. It’s like saying “Black criminals do occur in real life, so it’s okay if we make most/all of my
black characters into gangsters and thugs” or “My neighbor is far more violent when he beats his wife, so it’s all right that I slap mine around a bit, because I’m not that bad!”
Please note: pointing to someone else’s offensive behavior does not excuse your own, even if that other person’s behavior was worse than yours.
I’m tired of the excuses. I remember a professor of mine talking about how he was allowed to write ditzy blondes, darn it all, because some blondes are ditzes! (Some blondes are also rocket scientists. Somehow those characters didn’t seem to make it into his fiction.)
The mermaid is better than a lot of Realms’ old covers, though it doesn’t fill me with confidence. By itself, it’s not a bad cover. The artwork doesn’t do anything for me personally, but if I saw it as a single issue in isolation, it wouldn’t necessarily make me cringe. Taken as one of many covers with a disproportionate emphasis on partially clothed women, on the other hand? Taken as the first cover of the newly relaunched magazine? That makes me uncomfortable.
But not as uncomfortable as Doug’s response as the official Art Director for the magazine. Like so many men responding to issues of sexism, Doug’s post seems to come back to two points: “I’m a nice guy!” and “How dare you judge me?”
I’m tired of it. I’m tired of seeing so many discussions of sexism devolve into The Festival of the Hurt Ego. I’m tired of my genre worshipping at the Altar of the Big Breasts. I’m tired of the excuses and the minimizing and the chest thumping.
I like Doug, but based on this, I don’t trust that he understands why this is a problem, or that he cares enough to consciously address it.
I hope I’m wrong.
Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.









Comments
The genre doesn't worship at the Alter of Big Boobs, that would imply the women with boobs would have some power to effect things. Since the women with big boobs don't exist, no real woman has any real power.
It worships at the Alter of Hungry Penises.
Also I find it hilarious that we're having conversations about how it's OKAY BECAUSE MERMAIDS DON'T WEAR CLOTHES. You know, because anyone's done a comprehensive survey of the mermaid population. Maybe they wear algae-dervied counterpressure wetsuits. It's fucking cold for human anatomy in the ocean. That's at LEAST as plausible as using the sartorial habits of fictional entities as justification for objectifying boobies.
I don't know anyone involved, so I could be wrong.
(I do like the cover, since in my head she's the sea-sheriff of a underwater Wild West and I am now enamoured of that idea.)
Lord, my typos are bad enough without me starting to impersonate ROF online sock.
Just on what I'm reading in his post, there seems to be a lot of feet stomping and hand waving of the "It's not my fault!!" kind.
This, particularly gets me:
I would imagine this was a marketing tactic, meant to move copies especially to boys between the ages of 11-18.
"Because them icky girls don't read!"
If that's not what he meant? Sadly, that is what came across. We had RaceFail '09, now it looks to be SexismFail as well.
Right here. This.
It's the kind of hand waving and buck-passing here that frustrates me most about confronting various -isms. Single incidents are so rarely egregious enough to create an uproar on their own, and so being outraged looks like overreacting to people who haven't cottoned on to a pattern, or to people who want to justify that pattern based on their own biases, conscious or not.
I mean, I don't doubt that he's a nice guy. Anyone can be a nice guy and ignorant, or a nice guy and make mistakes, or a nice guy and not know how to do more good than harm. Most people don't glory in their -isms. It's no wonder he's sounding defensive.
What I want to do -- and what I wish I had the clout to do -- is grab him (and people like him) by the shoulders and say, "Okay then. You're a nice guy who doesn't aim to be sexist and you're the art director for a major magazine in the genre? Good. Stop bitching and start using your imagination instead of playing into the same old shit that people complained about. Accept some criticism and grow from it."
*sigh*
And as someone who considers himself a pretty nice guy, I can attest that it's possible to be both nice and completely freaking clueless :-P
And just out of idle curiosity: How many of the artists are women? Do they actively pursue female artists like Rebecca Guay? I know next to nothing about publishing but maybe naked women are what are being submitted because that's what they've always bought before, and maybe adding some new blood to the artist pool would change what was submitted.
(IOW, breasts and stomach and buttocks under armor, because one well-placed slice with a sword will incapacitate the fighter)
I can say that when I see just about every single Black Gate issue--I want to READ it. The artwork on that magazine is simply second to none. There's a been a few that didn't grab me right off; just a matter of taste. I'm pretty sure that it has never once had a naked woman on the front either--rather it depicts exciting scenes, castles, GREAT landscapes...just all around really great artwork. And when I see the front, I can't wait to read. It does what it is supposed to do.
So for those that think that putting boobs on the front makes us buy it or read it...that's probably not true in many, many cases. Like a book cover, I want a scene that makes me want to read the story. I want shadows and fights, a landscape that intrigues, danger just out of sight...beautiful images that make me want to explore THE STORY.
I mean, really. What is it about breasts that people feel the need to link buying things to them? ;)
(Sorry, I know it's rhetorical. But I felt it needed to be said.)
Look at Barbie. She'd never been able to walk standing upright with her tiny waist and GIANT boosoms. Yet she's the most popular doll in the history of American toys (I don't know about worldwide).
Boobs sell... as sad as that is. I mean, hey, I had mine cut-off (2.5 lbs) b/c they were getting too much attention. I KNOW people pay attention to boobs. Guys & girls. Girls are just usually bitchy if yours are bigger.
I know 'women as objects' but it's art. Everything in art is an object. It's just in how you percieve it. *shrug*
Somehow I think the arguement is getting deeper than it should.
I didn't have too much trouble with Sovereign as a contributor (though they lost a check once), but I remember the subscription nightmares, particularly with the "free trial issue" madness. Not pretty.
A lot of the covers featuring scantily clad women, I tended (and still tend) to ignore, because it holds no appeal for me. What sells me on a zine, what has always sold me on a zine, is its contents. I look more at the stories in it, and see if any particular one catches my interest. A naked, near-naked, big-busted women on the cover does nothing for me. A male or female like in the one mock cover someone photoshopped and linked to, of the guy seen from behind with the tail, being male or female, that sort of cover is of more interest to me, being non-provocative and more a scene then an active attempt at sexual attraction.
Ah, now I've completely lost track of what I'msaying. =^~,0^=
Ah, yes. Barbie. I was always find of
mutilatingthe Dawn series, when it came out, rather than Barbie. I'm not entirely sure, but I believe that was the series of dolls. I wasn't so concerned with the anatomical, as with the racial, inequality I perceived in the Barbie at the time. Growing up, I never saw black Barbie or Ken dolls. I didn't mind Caucasian ones, but I did not want all my dolls to look the same. Not all my friends were Caucasian, and I did not want all my dolls to be Caucasian. Diversity is less boring.I think the same thing is applicable to magazine covers. More of the same gets to be a little old (the obvious boob jobs and impractical mail). Rather than use the impractical mail, they should steal a page from Celtic warriors. The Celts were more practical in their choice of defense, and IMO, it would make for a more interesting cover. That is, gonig the chain mail route: though there seems to be a general movement away from that venue.
mutilatingwas supposed to immediately preccede Barbie."There's a bimbo on the cover of the book . . ."
Yes, exactly.
I'll add to that my own discomfort that he doesn't understand that his choice to use existing backstock also reflects on his position as Art Director. I'm also made uncomfortable by any attempt to pass blame onto the artist through statements like, "if THAT'S WHAT THE ARTIST HANDS IN." When I found out that Warren was hiring someone with no art background to be the Art Director, I was skeptical, and this demonstrates why. I am hopeful that as Doug comes to understand what the job is, that will change.
On the other hand, I understand why he is upset - it seems everyone is attacking him after he's only done one issue. I understand how frustrating it would be to take over art direction for a magazine, and have your very first issue ripped to metaphorical shreds.
On the other other hand, he's missing the point again, because the original objection wasn't to him, or even that particular issue. People were/are upset with the pattern, and were upset that he didn't change it the first chance he got.
On the other other other hand...It's not usually a good decision to make huge changes your first day on the job (unless you've been explicitly told to). I think it's best to wait and see what direction he takes the magazine in, especially now that he's been exposed to how many people dislike what they were seeing.
Actually, I might have been more accepting of female T&A if they had offered up an equal amount of scantily clad males with appropriate penis bulges but noooooo, penis bulges are offensive and icky.
Personally, I'd like to see T&A get out of my genre.
Chicks in Chainmail anthology.
Read and rejoice.
As a fellow female geek in a male market driven genre I feel your pain. I still feel much ire for the first Fable game.
I was going to renew my subscription. At this point, I'm going to wait a year to see what happens.
Being openminded is necessary to changing one's mind, of course, but it's not sufficient; some ways of approaching a discussion don't successfully challenge extant ways of thinking, and I may be falling into one. (And I saw this issue - and peretrated it - during RaceFail).
So unless anyone chimes in saying "Oh Shweta you totally changed how I see things" I don't believe it's fair to blame Doug alone for the holes in our communication.
It's so nice to hear a guy like yourself say things like this, Jim. Unfortunately it seems to carry more weight when you say it. More changes need to be made in this society and I'm glad you're speaking out. Thank you.
Though a fair few of us wandered in from Tempest's tweet, and have commented on all three posts.
Thank you so much for saying all this!
I appreciate your classiness in warning me in advance about this post. I respect your strong opinions on this matter. I give all the props in the world for never once making me feel like you were attacking me, despite your strong disagreement with me on some of these matters. And yes, there are some things in your post I don't agree with, but nothing to make think differently/any less of you.
We just don't see eye to eye on this, and that's fine. I don't see any need to dissolve a friendship by bickering over this until we both lose our tempers. Hopefully after a few issues the artwork will inspire more confidence in you. Take care.
BTW, IIRC, that older cover is the last of the chicks-in-chainmail covers.
I don't expect everyone to agree with me 100% of the time. (Sure, the world would be a better place if they all did, but what are you going to do?)
I apprecate you reading the piece, though. I'll be eager to see the future issues.
Thanks,
Jim