Sexism in the Eclipse Phase Fanbase

Eclipse Phase is a tabletop roleplaying game mixing themes and moods of horror, action, political intrigue and the post-apocalyptic. It’s set in a future where a a global war killed off 95% of humanity and left the Earth uninhabitable. The surviving 5% spread out and colonized the Solar System, and adopted various radical transhuman technologies in order to adapt to the apocalypse.

It’s basically Call of Cthulhu in space, and it draws heavily from the genres of post-cyberpunk and British Post-Modern Space Opera, especially the works of Charles Stross and Alistair Reynolds. As a huge fan of Stross’ and Reynolds’ science fiction, the post-cyberpunk-genre, and horror roleplaying games, I found the game incredibly appealing.

Then, in the latest book released for the game, I saw this:

Overall, Eclipse Phase has been pretty good about giving a nuanced portrayal of female beauty. From the same book, we have this depiction. A skin-tight outfit, certainly – it even has knee-high boots! – but not one that is designed to invoke latex fetish outfits, and this, which is a pretty neat design that manages to be cool-looking without rampant misogyny.

And this all started when a poster on the official Eclipse Phase forums remarked on how he didn’t like the above image:

CodeBreaker: “[Another image] is, after the T&A piece on page 82 [referring to the above image – ed.], my least favourite picture in the book.”

Of course, misogynists can’t live with even the slightest implication that their sexism and hatred might in any way be a problem to people, so they start coming out of the woodwork to defend the indefensible:

Smokeskin: “You really see it that way? I see it as a conservative and very anonymous style. This is EP. People buy flawless bodies, have access to cheap, fast, painless and perfect body modification, and can get any clothing they want fabbed, if their clothing isn’t smart and able to look like whatever it is told to look like. She’s not the long-limbed, slim yet curvy thing with great hair in a cute dress than anyone trying to look very feminine but not overly sexy would pick.

Look at Hollywood movie stars and models in commercials for fashion and make up. That’s what anyone in EP that isn’t poor and wants to look good, will actually look like.”

(In Eclipse Phase people can transfer the minds between bodies, and people can buy specialized bodies grown to specification if they have a need for it. “Fabbers” are devices that use nanomachines to make almost anything from raw materials, including clothes.)

We can already tell that Smokeskin is a bit of an idiot who tries to justify the objectification and sexualization of women through really bad arguments. For example, he tries to claim that a woman dressed in a latex catsuit and a corset is a “conservative and anonymous style”. Then we have the statement “She’s not the long-limbed, slim yet curvy thing with great hair in a cute dress than anyone trying to look very feminine but not overly sexy would pick.”, which seems out of place; what does trying to look very feminine have to do with this? It will become clear, in time, that Smokeskin considers it a woman’s duty to look conventionally attractive to potential (male) partners.

He later decides to add the following:

Smokeskin: “I think it is just the tits that bother people. It is like the reaction to any other depiction of sexy women. Some people just find that sort of art demeaning and think that it was there to pander to a male audience. It’s obviously a silly idea, since sexy women actually exist in the real world and you find them in all walks of life, from soldiers to lawyers to fast food workers, and presumably such women also exist in EP. Of course combat armor that doesn’t cover the vitals is stupid, butthat doesn’t mean all women always wear practical clothing.” (sic)

Ah, yes. A rough generalization that lumps all objection against any objectifying portrayal into one group that can be ridiculed with a single statement – “women who are sexy (of their own volition) exist”.

Since I think that dismissing objections to blatant and inappropriate sexualization in entertainment as “silly” and – this is perhaps the worst part – implying it’s a part of female empowerment is, frankly, disgusting, I decided to join the fray:

Eukie: “If it wasn’t to pander to a male audience, it would be so disproportionately represented in art. It’s true that there exist some women who exercise their right to dress however they bloody want by dressing in a way traditionally considered sexy of their volition, but that doesn’t mean that it’s not demeaning to disproportionately represent the vast majority of women as dressing that way. The latter is very clearly done largely to satisfy the urges of a male audience.”

A pretty simple statement; the woman who want to look sexy of their own volition do exist, but that doesn’t change the fact that the portrayal of all women as seeking to be impossibly sexy isn’t demeaning and objectifying. We’re, after all, talking about this piece of thinly veiled fetish porn. One of my friends made the following observation:

“If it’s “shaming” women who like sexy clothing to decry fanservice and sexualised wet-dream models in fiction, what is it doing to women who like modest or practical or just non-stripperific clothing to marginalise their existence completely?

Because that’s what they are. Marginalised. Exiled to the margins and the background, if they exist at all. Look at a superhero comic and the civilians will be dressed normally and perhaps nicely and smartly or casually and attractively, but nonetheless in something you could actually see people wearing on the street. But the main characters? They get things like this or this. Defenders of this kind of fanservice pin the blame and the “shaming” on feminists, but they’re effectively marginalising and ignoring a huge segment of the population.”

Of course, as I’ve had the pleasure of discussing things with Smokeskin on the EP forums before, so I don’t actually expect him to be swayed by logic or argue honestly. In response to another user, I make the following statement:

Eukie: “I find T&A catsuit girl infuriating, because she’s blatant pandering. Her pose is terrible, the piece of art serves clearly to highlight her sexually rather than what she’s actually doing (there’s no proper background or flow of action that makes sense), her breasts are anatomically misplaced (as far as I can tell, her right breast is attached to the centre of her torso…), and her attire is pretty clearly supposed to be a latex catsuit, a corset and a pair of tall boots; if the angle of the image was a little different, I’d have bet all my rep we could tell she was wearing high heeled boots.”

This, of course, Smokeskin cannot abide; someone are implying that there’s sexism in his perfect bubble; he might have to actually change his ways, or worse, deal with it! – so he decides that he must silence this at once:

Smokeskin: “The women in EP art are a lot less sexy than the women I see in real life, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. But this is a rich neighborhood so I guess there could be a selection effect at work.”

Given that women in Eclipse Phase have a tendency to get depictions such as this or this or even this, I can only draw three conclusions:

a) He has a significant confirmation bias

b) He is lying

c) He lives right next to a female modelling agency and doesn’t get out much.

Smokeskin: “And aren’t people in EP supposed to be happier, more socially adept and more energetic than current humans? Wouldn’t that make them sexier? I think I’m much happier in my relationship because I try to look good for my wife by lifting weights and drinking protein shakes, getting the sort of clothes and haircut she likes, doing the work around the house that she wants done and other favors, getting her gifts etc., and she in turn does the things I like. Being self-centered and lazy with your appearance and what you do for your partner doesn’t make anyone happy. The more you give the more you’ll get.”

Or in other words:

“IT’S WOMEN’S RESPONSIBILITY TO BE ATTRACTIVE TO MEN!”

Since my personal crusade against a single idiot probably won’t be all that interesting to read about, it’s perhaps more interesting to look at some of the claims they make to justify their sexism and then pull those apart. I guess I can call the preceeding 1300 words giving you context for the kind of stupidity and misogyny that infects the roleplaying game and science fiction fandoms. So let’s look at some of the sci-fi angled justifications for blatant misogyny:

OneTrikPony: “2. “Catsuits” in space will be common because they are functional. Any space suit is a pressure suit. In low pressure environments you need pressure or your biomorph gets the bends and explosive flatulence. This can be provided by a bubble of compressed gas (like current, highly immobile, space suits) or it can be one of the mechanical pressure suits currently being prototyped at MIT, NASA and the ESA. If my job involvs flipping down a coridor I’m probably going to choose the mechanical type.” (sic)

(He’s talking about this, a Space Activity Suit under development by MIT.)

nick012000: “The “corset-on-latex” thing makes sense, given that this is Eclipse Phase, and body-hugging clothing is the norm rather than the exception (especially since the vast majority of spacesuits are pressure suits that operate by mechanical pressure, aka squeezing your body to replicate air pressure). The corset can be justified, since we can’t see the front; it’s entirely possible that it’s a utility vest that’s got a bunch of pouches to hold her gear. Additionally, from an artistic standpoint, the corset isn’t there to look sexy, it’s there to provide a stark visual contrast by providing a region of dark black on the white shininess of her suit.”

So, given that NASA and MIT are trying to develop skin-tight spacesuits, does that mean that it would be unrealistic and oppressive to demand that Eclipse Phase not use art where women are dressed like this?

No; it’s not the fact that the outfit is skin-tight that makes it objectifying and marginalizing. It’s a common tactic among misogynists and other bigots to focus on details in other to avoid having to deal with things like “nuance”, “portrayal” and “cultural perceptions”. It’s so much easier to bog things down in innocent details. For example, I’d mentioned that the female character in that image wore knee-high boots with her latex catsuit and corset. Cue this:

Smokeskin: “Look, knee high boots are common. My wife is a communication consultant at a pharmaceutical company with 30,000 employees, about as corporate as you get, and she regularly wear boots to work.”

OneTrikPony: “Regardless; Your specific objections have been negated because the items you find reason to objectify and sexualize are actually rational and fitting to the scene.”

<snip>

“Knee high boots: Seriously?! I can’t figure this one out. This point negates itself. No one can object to boots as being sexual without exposing their own fetish. She’s not wearing boots on the off chance it might titillate some fetishist. EVERY ACTION FIGURE WEARS BOOTS. Superman wears boots. It’s as sensible to ask why superman even bothers with clothes! You can not expect the whole world to not wear boots simply because they are sexualized for you. That’s just bizarre.” (Link)

They fail to see the forest for the trees; since knee-high boots aren’t in of themselves considered to fall into the category of fetish wear, they consider themselves free to criticize my ridiculous crusade against normal footwear, completely oblivious to the fact that I’m looking at the larger picture; that each of those elements add up to and reinforce the objectification and sexualization of the image, even if some of them are by themselves innocent.

By nitpicking at the details, they can always make statements that are “technically true”, but still misleading:

“Why do you complain that women are dressed sexy? Women do dress sexy.”

“Why are you complaining that the outfit is skin-tight? Future spacesuits will be skintight.”

“Why are you complaining about the knee-high boots? Women wear boots.”

This is a dishonest debating tactic; it tries to trap feminists into making ridiculous or contradictory statements by arguing against a point nobody actually made. In essence, it’s a version of a strawman argument; I’ve never complained about the presence of knee-high boots, yet this is the argument the misogynists pick apart.

Once you’re aware that this is what they’re doing; that they’re misrepresenting your position by cherry-picking statements and details while ignoring the larger picture, you can regain control of the situation. You can restate your position, with emphasis on the greater picture, or you can point out that they’re misrepresenting your position, and arguing dishonestly. Though, of course, the latter might not actually work:

Smokeskin: “when someone makes derogatory remarks about my sexuality, I’m going to call them out on it.” (Link)

Eukie: “The “derogatory remarks” I’ve made about your “sexuality” has, as far as I’m aware, been that I don’t think that some certain things that are made to titillate you belong in an RPG, on the basis that it is objectifying and demeaning to women. That’s hardly a “derogatory remark”, and I’m curious as to in what way you think it is.” (Link)

Smokeskin: “When you say that my sexuality is demeaning to women, you’re obviously being derogatory.” (Link)

Eukie: “”These images do not belong in an RPG because they are objectifying and demeaning to women” is not a derogatory statements about your sexuality. It does not demerit, disparage or belittle your sexual attraction to sexy women and the depiction thereof.” (Link)

Smokeskin: “When you say my sexuality demeans women, yes you are being derogatory towards both me and the many women who like being sexy.” (Link)

After all, you don’t actually have to think or engage with arguments if all you have to do is repeat a dismissed argument until everyone are so tired of talking to a brick wall they’ll throw their hands up in despair and leave, then declare themselves the victor.

In any case, in these kinds of discussions we can easily see that misogynists play the strawman card fast and often, by nitpicking details when it’s the larger picture that’s important; we don’t see this just with spacesuits. Take, for example, the archetypal female warrior from pulp-fantasy, who is dressed in… well, rather, not dressed in armour. Yet if you complain about how the armour leaves her legs unprotected, do not be afraid, the anti-feminism-brigade will be quick to point out that Roman legionaries didn’t wear leg armour.

Ignoring, you know, that Roman legionaries carried huge shields that protected their legs, and the context of Female Fantasy not-Armour is either one where full-body plate is expected, or one where the lack of leg protection is used as an example of how a chainmail bikni doesn’t protect against anything. In the former case, they misrepresent your position by pretending it is “lack of leg armour is unrealistic” rather than “why aren’t the women wearing plate mail like men?”. In the latter case, an example is represented as the end-all-be-all of the argument.

And sometimes people are just blatantly dishonest:

nick012000: “Except that it’s not purely an attempt at sex appeal. She’s just wearing a futuristic version of this, with a utility vest around her waist. In Eclipse Phase, suits like that aren’t sexual, they’re everyday work-wear.”

Eukie: “I want a clear answer on this: Do you or do you not agree that the outfit worn in the image on p. 82 resembles a latex fetish outfit?”

nick012000: “No. It does not. It is a mechanical pressure vacsuit.”