# Do Not Pass Go – Too Sexy for This Game



## JamesonCourage

> Jennifer: Nope. To have a litmus test implies that everyone has the same judgment. The only thing close to it I can think of is "Would you do the same thing if the character or person in question was the opposite gender?” Meaning, would you say that to me if I were a guy? Or if my character was?



Can you expand on this? Is this statement saying, basically, that it's sexist for NPCs, settings, etc. to react differently to different sexes? That seems like a remarkably strong statement, so I want to clarify before I give any real thoughts on it. As always, play what you like


----------



## Fiddleback

It will get expanded on in the next installment.  I dig at it a bit with her as the interview goes on.  For now though, feel free to fire away.


----------



## Ahnehnois

> Jennifer: Nope. To have a litmus test implies that everyone has the same judgment. The only thing close to it I can think of is "Would you do the same thing if the character or person in question was the opposite gender?” Meaning, would you say that to me if I were a guy? Or if my character was?



I think a better way of looking at this would be "would you do the same thing if both characters or persons in question were of the opposite gender?"


----------



## amerigoV

> Jennifer: Nope. To have a litmus test implies that everyone has the same judgment. The only thing close to it I can think of is "Would you do the same thing if the character or person in question was the opposite gender?” Meaning, would you say that to me if I were a guy? Or if my character was?




I am curious about this one as well. I do not buy into "women are more emotional than men", but men do have a societal pressure not to show certain emotions or to at least restrain them. In my limited experience (lets face it, gaming groups tend to be stable for long periods, so I am not claiming to have gamed with 100s of players or anything) that does leak over into the gaming table. Men tend to play "manly" characters, which includes them playing the PC with a restricted reaction range to emotional situations.

I get what she was saying based on the werewolf example. But I freely admit I will gear certain scenes to a woman player if I want to set a tone for a scene or adventure.  I do this not because I think they are more emotional, but that women (ime) will role-play the character's reaction more true to how the character would react in real life. 

Let me give an example of where I favored a woman player for a scene. In an opening adventure the group completely missed/blew off the fact that there was a "the world will end if you do not do something" meta plot out there (for you Savage Worlds fans - the main 50 Fathoms Plot Point). So I looked for a way to make it more personal so the players and PCs would react. I heard a great little story on the radio (old time-radio show) and decided to adapt it. The story was a couple (socialites) took a stroll on the beach after a party and discovered old man writing names and dates in the sand. It turns out the dates were their date of death. The point of the story was these two saw their dates and decided to live more meaningful lives in the time they had left (and it had a nice, eerie tone to it). So I wanted to get a similar reaction to from the group - I wanted a player that would be both curious and weirded out while fully interacting with the scene and not just throw out some joke to ruin the mood. So I geared the whole scene to a woman player in the group and made the rest of the knuckleheads stay quiet. The scene came off beautifully and it engaged the whole group through her (plus I did not have to get out the big clue bat).

Would one of the men in the group done that well? Possibly and even likely. But I knew I had a 90%+ chance that she  (and other women players in my past groups) would pull it off vs. say 60% chance with the male players.

(FYI a few session later she cut the hand of the ship's captain (and other PC), but that is another story)


----------



## Umbran

Fiddleback said:


> Refusing to purchase product you find offensive is, if we were dealing with a brick and mortar store for example, called voting with your feet. You do not patronize publishers that have made a clear statement about their products and their views if you find those views and products offensive. If enough people do this, it can send and effective and clear message about what the public wants as the bottom line drops out from under these producers.




You say it can send a clear message.  I'm skeptical that it generally does.  If the publisher has made one particular product, and suddenly everyone stops buying, that may send a message, but if already middling to poor sales are just more poor than expected, I doubt the publisher is going to go, "Oh, wait, it must have been this one particular part of the product that did it!"

If you are not willing to give them a specific and well-stated direct communication about why you aren't buying, you should not expect them to be able to guess why.  passive-aggressiveness does not have a place in public policy. 



> Jennifer: The closest thing to sexism I've personally experienced in role-playing was in a game where werewolves were attacking my character because she was pretty. Did I find it offensive? No, because it made sense for the NPCs. Was it sexist? Probably, yeah.




This is a bigger issue.  Is the existence of sexist characters in the game world in and of itself sexist?  

Well, I hate to Godwin myself, but... is the existence of Nazis in the game supportive of fascism?  Does it mean the GM holds to some of their ideals?  *No!*  Nazis are the guys we are allowed to hate, because they are so bad!

The sexist NPCs in question are Bad Guys, are they not?  They must, perforce, be BAD.  They must have bad qualities - like greed, racism, and sexism.  If the GM were trying to portray those as the Good Guys, where their behavior was somehow supposed to be positive, then having them there is sexist.  If they are portrayed as the villains, that's a statement *against* sexism.

This is a separate question from whether they should stop if the player asks.  Players do have trigger issues.  Some players don't want to deal with, say, child abuse in game.  Or drug addiction plots, or overt sexism.  The GM and players should have some discussion before game begins as to what's allowed territory, and they should be sensitive to each others' needs in this.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Voting with your wallet is actually pretty effective...if and only if it is accompanied by clear communication as to WHY the product in question is being boycotted.

As for the landmines of dealing with sexism...well, every "-ism" by definition affects the target much differently than it does those who are not.  So, if you're a member of the dominant portion of society in relation to then"-ism" in question, you don't generally get to define what it is and what it isn't.  You don't have the personal perspective.  Empathy, perhaps, but not experience.

Of course, perceptions will vary, sometimes from situation to situation involving the same person.  Take one of the more obvious visible forms of racism in the USA: the wearing of blackface.  99% of the time, it is simply unacceptable.  Even Ted Danson got in trouble for doing so _at the insistence of then-girlfriend Whoopi Goldberg._

Yet a version of it is part of the costuming of the Krewe of Zulu in New Orleans' Mardi Gras...for members of all races.


----------



## Morrus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Voting with your wallet is actually pretty effective...if and only if it is accompanied by clear communication as to WHY the product in question is being boycotted.




That's the problem with boycotts.  It could tell the entire industry "we don't like medieval fantasy" or "we don't like superhero movies" or "we don't like leading actors with brown hair".   They're a self-damaging method of protestation because they're non-specific.

Not that I have a better suggestion.


----------



## Fiddleback

You'll note that in my summation of the suggestions, I end up by saying that the it is probably some combination of the reasonable ones that would prove most effective.  So, letter writing (communication) along with boycotting.  Boycotting without explanation just means you aren't a customer and game companies are already used to that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Communication is the key to changing behavior.  I can't speak to its success, but when we had "A Day Without Mexicans" back in 2007 to highlight the effect of immigration here, it DID make people think a bit more...

And it was because everybody knew it was coming.  If all the Mexicans had simply not showed up for work & school WITHOUT the press initiative prior to the demonstration, nobody would have gotten the point.


----------



## JoshDemers

In my mind sexism (and many other "isms") is a big deal because it can be so easily accepted. I've known people I consider to be very thoughtful, open-minded, and sensitive, and been taken aback when I presented a female NPC only to have them ask for the "Hotness Factor." Beauty can be important to a story, but not always. I imagine that most gamers see their characters as attractive men and women, but that doesn't need to come into play. So why did these guys ask? 

I didn't have the presence of mind to ask (I will next time it comes up). It just seems it is way too easy to objectify people, and nothing good comes out of that.


----------

