I did an informal review of the Mongoose Traveller Core Rulebook, and it's actually pretty decent at including illustrations of women and people of color, though it could be better. It's just distributed oddly.
I looked at each illustration. If it contained obvious humanoid figures, I categorized them.
My skin tone categories were "alien" (meaning, to me, skin tone and gender were not useful concepts), "white" (meaning that the skin tone was pretty clearly white), "POC" (meaning that the skin tone was pretty clearly not white), or "can't tell skin tone."
My sex categories were "male" (presenting typical male features), "female" (presenting typical female features), or "can't tell sex."
I also noted if the figure was completely covered in a spacesuit or battlesuit, as there are a lot of these.
OVERALL
70 figures
White: 47%
POC: 13%
Can't Tell Skin: 29% (10% completely covered)
Male: 50%
Female: 19%
Can't Tell Sex: 20% (10% completely covered)
Alien: 11%
FIRST QUARTER OF BOOK
(Character Creation, pp 1-47)
44 figures
White: 64%
POC: 5% (2)
Can't Tell Skin: 18% (9% completely covered)
Male: 50%
Female: 23%
Can't Tell Sex: 14% (9% completely covered)
Alien: 14%
SECOND QUARTER OF BOOK
(Skills & Tasks, Combat, Encounters & Dangers, Equipment, pp 48-104)
19 figures
White: 11% (2)
POC: 32%
Can't Tell Skin: 58% (16% completely covered)
Male: 53%
Female: 11% (2)
Can't Tell Sex: 37% (16% completely covered)
Alien: 0%
LAST HALF OF BOOK
(Spacecraft, Space Combat, Psionics, Trade, Worlds, Index, pp 105-188)
7 figures
White: 43%
POC: 14% (1)
Can't Tell Skin: 14% (0% completely covered)
Male: 43%
Female: 14% (1)
Can't Tell Sex: 14% (15.8% completely covered)
Alien: 29%
Cheesecake and Beefcake
I also looked at each image and made a very subjective determination about whether the image focused on "cheesecake and beefcake." Note that I made this determination for each figure, regardless of gender. Also note that I don't care if it's "sexy" as a side-effect, but rather if it contained (again, IMO) overtly sexualized imagery.
I realize that people will disagree on what falls into this category, or why. I'm also not judging this content as good or bad. It just is.
13 of the 70 images (19%) fell into this category, by my estimation. Of those 13, 9 were female, 4 were male.
One of the representations of the Entertainer on page 18 was a woman in a skintight outfit that suggested near nudity (certainly there are other kinds of entertainment roles for women in the future). There were a couple instances of combat-ready women carrying guns, but wearing cutoff t-shirts, hip-hugging jeans, and no bras. The example of the Scholar on page 30 depicts a curvy woman with large breasts clearly visible through a very skimpy and clingy cutoff t-shirt; her nipples are covered by suspenders that fail to hold up her pants, such that her thong is clearly visible. She's carrying three books and a scroll, so she's probably supposed to be the Field Researcher. Sexy, but I'm not sure it screams "Scholar" (Field Researcher / Scientist / Physician), unless it's the "Sexy Scholar" costume for Halloween. For contrast, the male figure on the same page is a 60-something white guy dressed in a surgeon's lab coat, wearing a stethoscope, hovering over a medical patient--you know, doing Physician stuff and not looking sexy at all.
The four male figures I marked as beefcake, for reference, are on pages 18, 20, 25, and 58. Their level of beefcake isn't nearly the same as the level of cheesecake for the women, but I felt like I should mark them. Generally, they made the list because they were wearing clingy t-shirts that showed their muscles, or had a big codpiece for no reason at all. The male Entertainer has his shirt open. Really, you probably wouldn't think twice about most of them.
I looked at each illustration. If it contained obvious humanoid figures, I categorized them.
My skin tone categories were "alien" (meaning, to me, skin tone and gender were not useful concepts), "white" (meaning that the skin tone was pretty clearly white), "POC" (meaning that the skin tone was pretty clearly not white), or "can't tell skin tone."
My sex categories were "male" (presenting typical male features), "female" (presenting typical female features), or "can't tell sex."
I also noted if the figure was completely covered in a spacesuit or battlesuit, as there are a lot of these.
OVERALL
70 figures
White: 47%
POC: 13%
Can't Tell Skin: 29% (10% completely covered)
Male: 50%
Female: 19%
Can't Tell Sex: 20% (10% completely covered)
Alien: 11%
FIRST QUARTER OF BOOK
(Character Creation, pp 1-47)
44 figures
White: 64%
POC: 5% (2)
Can't Tell Skin: 18% (9% completely covered)
Male: 50%
Female: 23%
Can't Tell Sex: 14% (9% completely covered)
Alien: 14%
SECOND QUARTER OF BOOK
(Skills & Tasks, Combat, Encounters & Dangers, Equipment, pp 48-104)
19 figures
White: 11% (2)
POC: 32%
Can't Tell Skin: 58% (16% completely covered)
Male: 53%
Female: 11% (2)
Can't Tell Sex: 37% (16% completely covered)
Alien: 0%
LAST HALF OF BOOK
(Spacecraft, Space Combat, Psionics, Trade, Worlds, Index, pp 105-188)
7 figures
White: 43%
POC: 14% (1)
Can't Tell Skin: 14% (0% completely covered)
Male: 43%
Female: 14% (1)
Can't Tell Sex: 14% (15.8% completely covered)
Alien: 29%
Cheesecake and Beefcake
I also looked at each image and made a very subjective determination about whether the image focused on "cheesecake and beefcake." Note that I made this determination for each figure, regardless of gender. Also note that I don't care if it's "sexy" as a side-effect, but rather if it contained (again, IMO) overtly sexualized imagery.
I realize that people will disagree on what falls into this category, or why. I'm also not judging this content as good or bad. It just is.
13 of the 70 images (19%) fell into this category, by my estimation. Of those 13, 9 were female, 4 were male.
One of the representations of the Entertainer on page 18 was a woman in a skintight outfit that suggested near nudity (certainly there are other kinds of entertainment roles for women in the future). There were a couple instances of combat-ready women carrying guns, but wearing cutoff t-shirts, hip-hugging jeans, and no bras. The example of the Scholar on page 30 depicts a curvy woman with large breasts clearly visible through a very skimpy and clingy cutoff t-shirt; her nipples are covered by suspenders that fail to hold up her pants, such that her thong is clearly visible. She's carrying three books and a scroll, so she's probably supposed to be the Field Researcher. Sexy, but I'm not sure it screams "Scholar" (Field Researcher / Scientist / Physician), unless it's the "Sexy Scholar" costume for Halloween. For contrast, the male figure on the same page is a 60-something white guy dressed in a surgeon's lab coat, wearing a stethoscope, hovering over a medical patient--you know, doing Physician stuff and not looking sexy at all.
The four male figures I marked as beefcake, for reference, are on pages 18, 20, 25, and 58. Their level of beefcake isn't nearly the same as the level of cheesecake for the women, but I felt like I should mark them. Generally, they made the list because they were wearing clingy t-shirts that showed their muscles, or had a big codpiece for no reason at all. The male Entertainer has his shirt open. Really, you probably wouldn't think twice about most of them.
