# Sexism in D&D and on ENWorld (now with SOLUTIONS!)



## shilsen

My girlfriend and I have recently been discussing the issue of sexism in D&D. I’ve been playing D&D since 1999, coming in at the end of 2e and playing through 3e (and 3.5e) into 4e now. Almost all my groups have included women in them, ranging from a single woman in an otherwise all-male group, to groups with more women than men, to one all-female groups (well, other than me, of course). And I’ve been on ENWorld since 2002. In contrast, my girlfriend got into gaming less than a year ago, has only played in one group (where she’s the only woman), and wasn’t a member on ENWorld till today, though she has read a lot of threads here. But, despite our very divergent experiences, both of us agree about the fact that there’s way too much sexism in D&D in general, and on ENWorld too. So I figured I’d start a thread on it, partly to share my thoughts on the subject and partly to see what people think.

I’ve seen a number of discussions about gender issues and sexism on ENWorld, such as the following:

Sexism in your campaign settings

Can sexism be good for plot?

Eberron: No sexism?

But I’ve never yet seen a persuasive argument for why sexism should _inherently_ be part of D&D. And yet it is, whether in the settings, the marketing of the game, the general climate of the game, and even on sites such as ENWorld. One of the many reasons why Eberron sticks out positively to me as a setting is (as noted in the thread above) because it explicitly eschews sexism. While I think a particular group or homebrew setting can choose to involve sexism in their games (presumably with everyone involved on board about it), I absolutely believe that the core rules and settings of D&D should be egalitarian. I think D&D is a wonderful game, which is why I spend so much time on it, and I would prefer the hobby to thrive and grow. And it seems utterly counter-productive and wrongheaded, to me, for the marketing and presentation of the game to ignore 51% (or is it 52% now?) of the population, or to treat them like second-class citizens in the game. Unfortunately, with D&D traditionally having been a game written by, for and sold to, men, it seems that many people aren’t that interested in expanding the player base if it requires catering a little more to women, as Malcolm from Channel M Publishing (which is producing a female-centered game, Witch Girls Adventures) mentions here.

The problem, I believe, is also exacerbated by the fact that gamers in general can be quite sexist, often without realizing it. ENWorld, for example, has issues in that area. I love this site, since it’s full of smart, creative and articulate people who happen to share an interest with me. And there are many people who comment on and, in their own gaming, work against the sexism that has been and is a part of D&D. But I also constantly see comments on the site which reinforce the idea of D&D as a boy’s club, where women are an aberration. Whether it be someone trying to be chivalrous and coming across as incredibly misogynistic, or someone very explicitly being exclusionary towards women in their game, or someone arguing that fantasy art is about naked women, or random posts which show that  ale and whores or wandering harlots  (EDIT: I've been corrected that I missed the context in which the harlots table was posted, so I was wrong there. Apologies to Piratecat!) are assumed to be just an amusing and accepted part of the game, they all support a “this is for boys” vibe. And I’m not even getting into the creepiness which shows up every once in a while when some poster in ENWorld reveals herself to be female. I’m guessing the above has at least some influence on how many female gamers we have on this site.

I understand that one of the primary reasons, if not the major one, for such sexism is because we live in a world (speaking mostly of the USA here, which has the biggest part of the D&D pie) where sexism runs rampant. So people bring their preconceptions and life experiences with them into gaming, often without realizing what they’re doing. For example, I’m currently running a round-robin game in a game setting co-created by two very creative and intelligent people whom I would never call intentionally sexist. Their setting, at least in appearance, seems a fairly egalitarian one. But somehow, the number of powerful and important female NPCs in the setting is about a tenth of the powerful and important male NPCs, even though there is no logical or inherent reason why that should be the case. The result – it seems like a setting about and for men, even though it’s certainly not intended that way. 

Anyway, there’s a lot to say on the subject but I’ll quit here. In short, I think there’s far too much sexism in D&D (I’m focusing only on D&D here since that’s almost exclusively what I’ve played), whether in the game’s presentation and marketing or the player base, including here on ENWorld. And I think that’s a serious negative and hope that it will change. 

What do you think? 


Note: I think D&D tends to be exclusionary with regards to race, sexuality and in other areas too, but I’m just focusing on sexism here.

EDIT: I've added a post here putting forth some quick and simple suggestions towards running a non-sexist game. Thoughts and opinions are welcome.

ANOTHER EDIT: Just in case it helps, I thought I should add a bit about what I mean by sexism here. When I refer to sexism in general and in the game, I do _not_ mean differences between the sexes or gender roles. What I mean by sexism is (stealing heavily from Merriam-Webster here) prejudice/discrimination based on sex, and esp. (with regard to this thread) behavior, conditions and attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. An important element in my definition of sexism, again esp. where this thread is concerned, is the assumption that masculinity or male positions/attitudes are the norm.


----------



## Crothian

shilsen said:


> What do you think?




I think some people are sexist and some people aren't.  Many people i think don't realize they are being sexist when they are.  But i also feel that some people are over sensitive to remarks they find sexist and find it where it doesn't exist. 

I once was running a game that including a woman PC.  After she read over the setting she was upset with me that in my setting I had women and men equal.  She wanted to create a female character that had to prove herself to the men and over come that in a fantasy setting.  Some people actually do want sexism in their game.  

In general I don't see much sexism on EN World or in D&D books.  Sure, you found a few examples but those are clearly in the minority.  As always if you read something on EN World you find sexist report the post.  If there is something in one of the books post it as an example.


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir

Thank god someone so enlightened came by to show us the error of our ways.   Really I had no idea this hobby I'd enjoyed for so long was so misogynistic.  I guess the female players that I've gamed with since the early 80s were just confused or self-loathing.

Look, there are a number of things wrong with your arguments.  In fact, you're really just starting with a conclusion and then expecting everyone to chime in and agree with you, rather than have a serious discussion.

Anyone who knows anything about the evolution of the hobby knows why it's predominantely male.  It originated with wargames (overwhelmingly male), merged in elements of fantasy literature (at the time, mostly male), and for a number of reasons was mostly attractive to the geeks and the nerds.  Throw in some early bad publicity, and voila.

Like everything else, it's evolved.  The truly sexist RPG stuff is the butt of jokes (eg FATAL), or has been coopted by women gamers themselves (the chainmail bikini).  The only games that draw gender distinctions anymore are the ones with some greater focus on realism or historical accuracy, and even with those it's largely lip-service.

The bigger factor is that most people got in to RPGs because someone they knew introduced them to the hobby.   When you're young, that's primarily other people of the same gender and background.  And as the hobby matured, so did the gamers, and the demographics spread.  Hang around with some adult gamers, and see how many are part of groups with married couples.  

And they're raising the second generation of gamers, sons *and* daughters.   One of the mods here let his daughter GM at a couple ENWorld gamedays, and she wasn't running the game for kids, but for adults.  I don't think he would have let her do that if he thought that gaming was a sexist endeavor.

Every gaming group I've been a part of has had female gamers.  They ran the same gamut that the guys did, good players and bad, powergamers and drama queens, rules-lawyers and space cadets.


----------



## Vegepygmy

Crothian said:


> In general I don't see much sexism on EN World or in D&D books.



Yep.  I don't really buy Shilsen's premise, though it never hurts to be reminded that other people may see things differently.


----------



## Lwaxy

Being female, I've never had any issues with sexism in either situation. In any game world i play I or run, except in SciFi settings, sexism happens, just not always towards women. In most societies, females are/were the ones to stay home and raise children, that's a biological necessity for not well developed worlds. Also, females tend to be less violent and may base their competition and quest for power more on being the one pulling the strings behind a ruler than being one themselves. 

I see nothing wrong with that. Me and my players both have female and male characters each (in fact my human/elf mercenary keeps ending up in the whore houses, usually without enough money to pay) so in game, it isn't an issue at all. 

As in being a female gamer, I've never run into any RL sexism issues either. Maybe that's partly because I'm only one of two GMs they can come to, or because I'm not good looking, but except once where one of the (female) gamers fell in love with another player, we never had issues. 

Also, usually guys notice pretty fast that I'm not the standard female. I make the same type of jokes, drink the same type of beer and can fart as loud as any of them. Of course we can't expect all females to behave like that. Which is why sometimes an all guy group may feel uncomfortable if a female player is added. The flirting issues I read in one of the other threads aside - I think in a mainly male environment, a female who has issues with certain types of jokes and such is probably not best placed.


----------



## Piratecat

shilsen said:


> ...or random posts which show that... wandering harlots are assumed to be just an amusing and accepted part of the game



Well, frankly, they are. That table is one of the bizarre artifacts of the 1e DMG, and generally mentioned because people nowadays can't believe that it existed. Bringing up the past is not tantamount to promoting sexism in gaming, and I'm a little surprised you used it as an example.

Then again, folks should draw their own conclusion; I had posted the table, so my opinion is probably biased.  

I'm dead-set against sexism in real life, in gaming and here on the boards. I think it's up to each DM and player to make sure that they aren't maintaining a game that makes people uncomfortable. I have the most fun with both sexes in my game (out of 12 players in two campaigns, six are female), and both my NPC authority figures and my villains are often female. But that being said, I don't consider my game to be a soapbox against sexism. I'm not trying to make a societal point when I play D&D, I'm trying to have fun and make sure that all my players do as well. Being conscious of sexism (and racism), without dwelling on it, serves me well here.

Like Rodrigo said, I've gamed with well over a hundred different women. They've run the same gamut as male players have, and have the same strengths and foibles. Expecting otherwise seems a bit odd to me.


----------



## frankthedm

I found this part of the OP's post the most helpful when evaluating it.







> I understand that one of the primary reasons, if not the major one, for such sexism is because we live in a world (speaking mostly of the USA here, which has the biggest part of the D&D pie) where sexism runs rampant.


----------



## Cadfan

Part of the problem is that gaming is, for some people, literally a boy's club to retreat to in order to find a place to fit in.  And they get accustomed to things being that way.

I'm not against boy's clubs as a general rule.  People being what they are, its cool if they associate in gender segregated groups.  Just look around the lunch room in a school, its how people are.  But people also associate in gender integrated groups, and from my perspective I'd rather D&D was more of the latter than the former.  So I'm sympathetic to the difficulties here, and don't really know what to do about it, since what I want is probably quite literally the opposite of what many disaffected young guys need.

I'm less sympathetic to people who have internalized... have gender normative... have... crap.  I'm trying to think of a way to say this without descending into incomprehensible humanities- speak.

People, particularly guys, and particularly guys in a traditionally male dominated context, start to assume that the things specifically included to appeal to males are somehow "normal" and therefore not _actually_ specifically designed to appeal to males.  This bugs me a bit.  You'll get people who look at Barbie and recognize that it's designed to appeal to girls, and then look at a cartoon entitled something like Mega Robot Viking Ninja Explosion Turbo or whatever and cannot, no matter how hard they try, see that this might just be a wee bit aimed at boys as a market.  I think these are the people who are more... "the problem" so to speak, because they don't adjust their behavior when the context changes from "boy's club" to a game with both men and women playing.  They think that their jokes or comments or soft porn artwork are "normal" and not actually gender specific, and blame others, particularly women, for not liking the things and the behavior they do.  If someone ever uses the word "feminazi," chances are you're talking to someone in this category.  Ditto "oversensitive" with reference to women who dislike their behavior.

Obviously I'm engaging in a bit of generalization here... so please don't regale me with stories of this one girl you know named Suzie who thinks that wandering prostitute charts are totally awesome and wants to play a sex pot rape victim PC in a chainmail bikini unless you think that she's representative.

So how do I think that modern D&D is doing in this regard?

I think its mostly doing alright.  There are actually a fair amount of female characters in published adventures and so on, and they're not all typecast as the healing chick or the rogue.  The NPC victims are mixed in gender as well, and the tendency to sexualize the female victims is toned down a bit.  The artwork does tend to sexualize the females depicted, and the efforts to sexualize the males depicted a little bit tends to suffer from the "this is what guys think women want to see" syndrome, but its still a big improvement over how things used to be.  Sexualized characters aren't necessarily a terrible thing, depending on how its done, and while this hasn't quite been worked out yet, its still better than it has been.

I know very little about published settings, they're just not a big part of my interaction with D&D.  But as for published adventures, I think they're ok.

Overall, I think that the biggest thing that needs to be done is no longer excising sexism so much as it is including things that appeal to girls and women.  Its why I'd like D&D to take a little more influence from modern fantasy, which is much, much more mixed in terms of the genders to which it appeals.  Anne McCaffrey, Mercedes Lackey, there are a LOT of female authors of fantasy and a lot of female readers.  There's no particular reason why they wouldn't enjoy a roleplaying game, _if it emulated the fantasy that they like. _This is an area of heavy generalization, obvious, because its not like only women read Mercedes Lackey or anything, and its not like the sort of fantasy that D&D covers isn't read by women.  But I think there are definitely certain trends that could be added to D&D seamlessly, broadening the experience for existing players, and perhaps appealing to some new ones.

Blue Rose did this.  But given that it did so almost entirely through setting design, there's literally no reason I can think up that D&D couldn't do it as well.  There's no reason why you'd need a separate game to do Anne McCaffrey style fantasy.


----------



## Mallus

shilsen said:


> ... co-created by two very creative and intelligent people whom I would never call intentionally sexist.



So true!



> Their setting, at least in appearance, seems a fairly egalitarian one. But somehow, the number of powerful and important female NPCs in the setting is about a tenth of the powerful and important male NPCs, even though there is no logical or inherent reason why that should be the case.



Well now that's an interesting observation. The funny thing is CITY (the group's previous campaign setting) was intentionally sexist and racist, and yet the most powerful and influential NPC's encountered during the campaign were women. CITY was deliberately meant, in part, to be a parody of the less-than-savory aspects of the genre. Would you call CITY less sexist than the Port (the setting for the round-robin)?

With the Port it seems John and I were just following the genre(s). Which would make it fairly sexist, then, I guess .



> The result – it seems like a setting about and for men, even though it’s certainly not intended that way.



Does the fact that it's largely _about_ men --so far, at least-- necessarily mean it's also _for_ men? 

I'll post some less personal responses later, assuming this thread doesn't go down in a blaze of politics. I _think_ I want to make a point about the _gender_ of particular narratives (that some skew male or female, not that's there anything wrong with that). To my mind, the exclusionary part of some game narratives is that they're fundamentally about solving problems with physical violence and looting, not their lack of strong female characters.


----------



## Umbran

shilsen said:


> ... both of us agree about the fact that there’s way too much sexism in D&D in general, and on ENWorld too.




I think that aside from the art, you will be hard pressed to find anything sexist about the core rules of the recent editions.  

Campaign worlds have to present a society.  Most of the societies in recorded human history have had strong gender roles.  It is thus actively difficult to produce a game-society that is plausible, but has no trace of sexism.

I have, in the past, been told that the manner of eradicating gender roles can show as much or more sexism (by way of "pandering", among other things) than depicting a realistic moderately sexist culture in the game.  Rock and a hard place, there.

As for EN World - saying there's too much sexism here is rather like saying there's too much sexism in the world.  We have no control over the upbringing and beliefs of individual posters.  Sexism is here because it is in the general population.  You won't fix sexism here, except by fixing it in the general population.



> Unfortunately, with D&D traditionally having been a game written by, for and sold to, men, it seems that many people aren’t that interested in expanding the player base if it requires catering a little more to women




I have a major logic failure here.  You see, in order to "cater to women", we must have a profile of what women like that is not in the game.  That's a stereotype, and inherently sexist.


----------



## Bumbles

> where women are an aberration




Hmm...

Checking the SRD...

An aberration has a bizarre anatomy, strange abilities, an alien mindset, or any combination of the three.

Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Mallus

Umbran said:


> I think that aside from the art, you will be hard pressed to find anything sexist about the core rules of the recent editions.



Right. The mechanics stopped being sexist in 2e.


----------



## Cadfan

Umbran said:


> I have a major logic failure here. You see, in order to "cater to women", we must have a profile of what women like that is not in the game. That's a stereotype, and inherently sexist.



Really?

Do you think that D&D as it exists today caters to men?


----------



## Proserpine

> Campaign worlds have to present a society. Most of the societies in recorded human history have had strong gender roles. It is thus actively difficult to produce a game-society that is plausible, but has no trace of sexism.




Most societies in recorded history were... well, 100% human, non-magical, and had strong, centralized religions. Gender roles are also developed by tradition and/or necessity, things which would be heavily mediated or completely eradicated by the presence of magic, a variety of intelligent species, and a loose (or even strict) religious system that is gender-blind. 



Umbran said:


> I have a major logic failure here.  You see, in order to "cater to women", we must have a profile of what women like that is not in the game.  That's a stereotype, and inherently sexist.




Shilsen, I think, isn't calling for D&D to "cater to women" so much as he is calling for it to cater to egalitarianism. Not alienating women - by minimizing the boy's club feel and treating women like they're a legit demographic via less sexist artwork, better gender representation, and other crap - is key to that.


----------



## S'mon

I think any meaningful discussion of the issue would violate ENW's 'no politics' provision.

I do think WotC has been determinedly, even aggressively, anti-sexist in its presentation of D&D.


----------



## Remathilis

Mallus said:


> Right. The mechanics stopped being sexist in 2e.




Even then, the sexist elements in game-rule were fairly weak (a strength cap for females). There was no inherent rules forcing females into "weaker" sex roles (such as enchantress/witch) or barring them for traditionally "male" roles (priests, knights, paladins). In fact, unless you got into some of the bizarre pseudo-historical religions (like certain Greek or Norse deities) or some odd fantasy societies (drow elves), there was no inherent sexism IN THE RULES.

The artwork, otoh, is a different kettle of fish.


----------



## Remathilis

I feel I must call attention to WotC's OWN thoughts on the issue, found in 3.5's Dungeon Master's Guide II. 

EQUALITY AND HISTORY

[sblock] In the Middle Ages, as in most periods of human history, strict conventions governed the roles of men and women. Men fought, governed, ran businesses, created art, and determined religious doctrine. Women enjoyed responsibility and influence only in their own households. A few notable women flouted convention to wield as much influence as men. Examples include the teenaged military leader Joan of Arc; the queen and politician Eleanor of Aquitaine; and the mystic and composer Hildegard of Bingen. They broke the rules, but most women led constrained lives.

The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game treats male and female characters equally. Women are just as capable as men and face no barriers to careers as dungeon raiders. This choice keeps step with modern sensibilities. No gamer should have to play a male PC to have a good time.

A world with full legal and social equality between the sexes would differ significantly from the Middle Ages. The eldest royal heir would ascend to the throne, regardless of gender. Powerful lords would be duchesses as often as dukes. Religious hierarchies could well be integrated.

Some favorite fairy-tale plots go out the window in an egalitarian Middle Ages. Princesses would become accomplished warriors, perfectly capable of rescuing themselves from dragons. Heroes performing great feats would not be rewarded with marriages to fair maidens.

Most players want you to strike a balance between freedom from sexism and historical flavor. Play it by ear, fudge as necessary, and don’t look too hard at the contradictions. When a realistic portrayal of historical sexism would annoy or depress your players, tone down the history. When the details of an
equal-opportunity world seem too modern or out of step with the medieval atmosphere, revert to history. In general, players dislike having sexist rules applied to themselves but don’t mind so much when those rules involve NPCs—provided that any discrimination is presented as a normal element of a stable society, not as brutal or demeaning.[/sblock]


----------



## RefinedBean

Good god, I wish this thread had a humor tag.

And yeah, D&D is inherently sexist, at least a little bit.  You ever see fantasy pictures of "normal" women?  They're either horridly ugly (and therefore probably a monster in disguise, or Ugly For A Reason) or, at the very least, thin and big-breasted.  Meanwhile, males have a much bigger range.

It's the same kind of sexism found in most video games and other popular media.  Sex sells, and since you're selling mainly to men, you're going to objectify women at least a wee bit.

This, of course, does NOT mean that the people who play and enjoy D&D are sexist themselves.  We're wayyyy too diverse a group to pigeonhole like that.


----------



## Jack7

I can offer a sort of personal observation about all this, in an analogical fashion.

When I first starting dating my wife, who is black (I am not), she would notice people "looking at us funny a lot." It made her self-conscious (she'd never dated the white man before). It didn't me (make me self-conscious), I just don't tend to care anyways about that kinda thing. But I told her that it was fine, I never noticed it and people all treated us nicely anyways. People have always treated us nicely, with one exception, and that was a couple of young black boys, and I just happen to think that in their case they were kinda either jealous or disturbed that my girlfriend was with me instead of one a' them. Just a hunch based on their expressions and behavior.

Anywho at that time it wasn't even legal to do that in my state (cross the country race line), miscegenation laws were still in effect, and although nobody ever enforced them or even cared, our dating, much less our marriage, was Constitutionally illegal. As a technical matter. (Its entirely legal now. Even our youngins are legal now that the Constitution was amended. Will wonders never cease?) But I told my one day to be wife just to forget about anything she was assuming that people might be thinking and instead to just smile at them and be pleasant and I'd bet dollars to doughnuts they would return the favor. And they did, and often more than so. Even our one day to be pastor told me the first time I met him he didn't think much of the idea of a racially mixed marriage. (I respected his honesty and told him it didn't scare me none, if mine wouldn't him. And it didn't.) But he warmed up to my wife real swell once he actually met her. We even started going to my grandmother's old church and they took to us like white on rice, and black-eyed peas, and ten years earlier I'd sorta bet we'd have cleared the benches just by showing up. So that closed that case.

To make a long story short she eased up and began to relax some and within a few months she said she never noticed any funny looks any more. Either she really didn't notice anymore, there really weren't any funny looks in the first place (she had just been assuming about the motives of others instead of really knowing those motives), or like me, she just didn't care in any case. 

*My point is that sometimes in life you get what you go looking for.*
_And sometimes you get what you don't look for, which in many ways, may be just as important, if not more so, as the opposite thing._

Anywho, this is not to say there is no such thing as racism or sexism or whatever the "ism du jour" might be, it's just that it usually isn't the bugbear it appears to be on first blush, and truth be told, you get to know most people, and they're pretty fair. That is they may have motives for their beliefs, even ones I sometimes think wrong, but they may have motives that to them are based on solid principles or based on valid personal experience.

So you can't always mind-read and be accurate. I'm just not sure there are that many real Jedi masters running around.
Hell, the only ones I know who can mind read are women, that's what the ones I know tell me anyways, and I'm not always sure they're right either.

I can't prove that, for an absolute fact, but it's just a hunch based on personal observation.

As for the game, I suspect it's much like it is in real life.
You get the world you set out to make.

Or the one you'll tolerate anyway.


----------



## Hereticus

Marketing

and

product

design

cater

to

a

target

audience.


----------



## Proserpine

Re: posts that point out that D&D itself treats female and male characters equally. The mechanics in 4e are, indeed, gender blind. But the representation of women in adventure materials and whatnot isn't. Here and here offer some statistical proof of that. There's a big difference between explicit and implicit sexism, and neither a very good. Just because something isn't totally overt doesn't make it any less questionable or right.



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> People, particularly guys, and particularly guys in a traditionally male dominated context, start to assume that the things specifically included to appeal to males are somehow "normal" and therefore not _actually_ specifically designed to appeal to males. This bugs me a bit. You'll get people who look at Barbie and recognize that it's designed to appeal to girls, and then look at a cartoon entitled something like Mega Robot Viking Ninja Explosion Turbo or whatever and cannot, no matter how hard they try, see that this might just be a wee bit aimed at boys as a market.






			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> They think that their jokes or comments or soft porn artwork are "normal" and not actually gender specific, and blame others, particularly women, for not liking the things and the behavior they do. If someone ever uses the word "feminazi," chances are you're talking to someone in this category. Ditto "oversensitive" with reference to women who dislike their behavior.




I agree with pretty much everything you're saying, but especially with these parts. The marketing/designing issues are really troublesome, since women gamers will engage in "male-centric" activities in spite of not being considered a valid or equal part of those activities' audiences. And things don't really change, because we participate as long as we aren't explicitly excluded.

Your point is reinforced by a recent thread: the one shilsen linked about Witch Girl Adventures. The OP asked (I'm paraphrasing), "Have they missed their mark by targeting females?" That question was asked because the default audience, especially when it comes to gaming, is male.

It also bugs me, as a feminist geek especially, to see dissenting voices silenced in the way you mentioned. "Oh, you silly feminazi!" is not very productive, nor is blaming someone for their discomfort over sexist behavior, sexist artwork, or whatever else.
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1114872


----------



## Jack7

> and big-breasted.




I try not to hold that against any female.
I'm just enlightened that way.


----------



## S'mon

3.5 DMG2: "When a realistic portrayal of historical sexism would annoy or depress your players, tone down the history. When the details of an
equal-opportunity world seem too modern or out of step with the medieval atmosphere, revert to history"

- I thought this was particularly good advice for most GMs running a 'pseudo-medieval' setting.  Of course it's possible to have a D&D world that does not resemble medieval Earth at all - perhaps it's a far future world where men are extinct and women procreate asexually; or maybe humans sexes are very different from IRL.  Maybe it's a setting emulating feminist or anti-feminist fantasy.  But for the default D&D setting I think it's excellent advice.


----------



## ExploderWizard

There are Sly Pimps and Rich Panderers on that harlot table too, and they can be male or female. Heck, anything on that table could be a man whore if you wanted it to be.


----------



## Proserpine

Hereticus said:


> Marketing
> 
> and
> 
> product
> 
> design
> 
> cater
> 
> to
> 
> a
> 
> target
> 
> audience.




Haven't heard that one before. Oh, wait...

Part of the point is that there's no inherent reason for D&D to cater mostly to its male audience. Well, minus the fact that it came out of war gaming, but that's not a valid excuse - D&D has evolved a lot since then, and is a much different game now. What it comes down to is that D&D's target audience should be geeks, and there are PLENTY of female geeks out there (like myself) that feel second-rate when it comes to all sorts of gaming. I am marginalized in a group which is already socially marginalized. And marketing towards a target audience isn't really a good justification for the irony of that.



			
				RefinedBean said:
			
		

> It's the same kind of sexism found in most video games and other popular media. Sex sells, and since you're selling mainly to men, you're going to objectify women at least a wee bit.
> 
> This, of course, does NOT mean that the people who play and enjoy D&D are sexist themselves. We're wayyyy too diverse a group to pigeonhole like that.




Then the largely non-sexist geeks can make do without the sexist crap that objectifies women or casts them into gendered roles. A win for all!


----------



## mach1.9pants

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> Thank god someone so enlightened came by to show us the error of our ways.   Really I had no idea this hobby I'd enjoyed for so long was so misogynistic.  I guess the female players that I've gamed with since the early 80s were just confused or self-loathing.
> 
> Look, there are a number of things wrong with your arguments.  In fact, you're really just starting with a conclusion and then expecting everyone to chime in and agree with you, rather than have a serious discussion.



Yep there is no more sexism in DnD that anywhere in the 'real world' (TM) but I think a lot less in ENW. I think you are being hyper-sensitive to things which have _changed_. Original DnD held more sexism 'cos it was launched in a sexist time. The fact that you have played as the only male in an otherwise all female group helps prove DnD is _not_ intrinsicly sexist. Yes fantasy art includes a lot of flesh (including male) but thankfully not so much anymore or in DnD. Yes some settings are sexist to an extent.. well surprise surprise that is because they are based on medieval cultures where sexism was mostly the norm. 
And bringing up Pcats harlot table is pathetic, it is brought up *because* is is so anachronistic


----------



## ajanders

How do we intend to measure sexism?
Has someone defined a "sexism scale"?

What would be acceptable as evidence of "not sexism"?


----------



## shilsen

Sigh! This is why I shouldn't nap after I start a thread...



Crothian said:


> I think some people are sexist and some people aren't.  Many people i think don't realize they are being sexist when they are.  But i also feel that some people are over sensitive to remarks they find sexist and find it where it doesn't exist.




True. I generally tend to be wary of seeing sexism where it doesn't exist, but I'm also aware of the fact that what I define as sexism isn't necessarily what someone else would define as such. I should also note that what I'm referring to in the original post isn't so much out-and-out "women are inferior" sexism so much as a much subtler vibe that the game is geared towards men, which is more what I see.   



> I once was running a game that including a woman PC.  After she read over the setting she was upset with me that in my setting I had women and men equal.  She wanted to create a female character that had to prove herself to the men and over come that in a fantasy setting.  Some people actually do want sexism in their game.




Absolutely. I could thoroughly enjoy sexism in a game as long as it didn't make any of the players uncomfortable. I just don't think it has a place in the default game or the gaming community.



Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> Thank god someone so enlightened came by to show us the error of our ways.   Really I had no idea this hobby I'd enjoyed for so long was so misogynistic.  I guess the female players that I've gamed with since the early 80s were just confused or self-loathing.




Why would that have to be the case? I've met multiple female gamers who've told me they game despite the sexism in gaming because the game itself is something they enjoy. 



> Look, there are a number of things wrong with your arguments.  In fact, you're really just starting with a conclusion and then expecting everyone to chime in and agree with you, rather than have a serious discussion.




Not at all. I was fully expecting to see very little actual agreement with me here, but I figured we could discuss it maturely. 



> Like everything else, it's evolved.




No arguments there. I'm very aware of the fact that the game and the gaming community has evolved and certainly improved in this area. But improvement surely doesn't mean that one can't want further improvement, does it?



Vegepygmy said:


> Yep.  I don't really buy Shilsen's premise, though it never hurts to be reminded that other people may see things differently.




Thanks. That was the basic idea behind me starting this thread. I'm really curious to see what people think on the subject, esp. people who have a different take on it than me.



Lwaxy said:


> Being female, I've never had any issues with sexism in either situation. In any game world i play I or run, except in SciFi settings, sexism happens, just not always towards women.




Interesting. Do you eliminate sexism in SciFi settings? 



> As in being a female gamer, I've never run into any RL sexism issues either. Maybe that's partly because I'm only one of two GMs they can come to, or because I'm not good looking, but except once where one of the (female) gamers fell in love with another player, we never had issues.




Probably due to being male I've never run into issues with sexism in my games, but I've heard some serious horror stories from female gamers, both in real life and on forums such as ENWorld and the WotC boards (Astrid's Parlor there has some really bad tales to relate). 



> Also, usually guys notice pretty fast that I'm not the standard female. I make the same type of jokes, drink the same type of beer and can fart as loud as any of them.




Actually, that sounds like at least 50% of the female gamers I've met 



Piratecat said:


> Well, frankly, they are. That table is one of the bizarre artifacts of the 1e DMG, and generally mentioned because people nowadays can't believe that it existed. Bringing up the past is not tantamount to promoting sexism in gaming, and I'm a little surprised you used it as an example.
> 
> Then again, folks should draw their own conclusion; I had posted the table, so my opinion is probably biased.






No offense meant, PCat. I just happened to remember seeing that post of yours and it was the one I found when I did a quick search, so I linked it. I may have missed the context in which it was posted. That said, I think the nature of D&D's past does tinge the current in certain not-so-good ways, but then that's obvious in my original post. 



> I'm dead-set against sexism in real life, in gaming and here on the boards. I think it's up to each DM and player to make sure that they aren't maintaining a game that makes people uncomfortable. I have the most fun with both sexes in my game (out of 12 players in two campaigns, six are female), and both my NPC authority figures and my villains are often female. But that being said, I don't consider my game to be a soapbox against sexism. I'm not trying to make a societal point when I play D&D, I'm trying to have fun and make sure that all my players do as well. Being conscious of sexism (and racism), without dwelling on it, serves me well here.




That's one of the tough balancing acts for me. When I'm running a game, my primary aim is obviously the enjoyment of all concerned, not to make broader societal points. And so sexism and racism tend not to be engaged with unless they are specific plot points. But, at the same time, I tend to notice how societal points influence the nature and presentation of gaming and the gaming community, and I think some of that is worth discussion (hence the thread). 



> Like Rodrigo said, I've gamed with well over a hundred different women. They've run the same gamut as male players have, and have the same strengths and foibles. Expecting otherwise seems a bit odd to me.




I've gamed with a lot fewer people (men or women) than you, but I'm quite clear on the fact that there's no less or more variety in the women who game as the men. If I indicated otherwise in the original post, then I was presenting my point poorly.



frankthedm said:


> I found this part of the OP's post the most helpful when evaluating it.






> I understand that one of the primary reasons, if not the major one, for such sexism is because we live in a world (speaking mostly of the USA here, which has the biggest part of the D&D pie) where sexism runs rampant.




Good point. If someone seriously doesn't believe that sexism is an issue in the USA right now, I think it's safe to say that the person wouldn't see the sort of things I see (or view them as an issue). 

Of course, it's also possible that someone could think there's too much sexism in the US and _still_ think I'm full of it


----------



## Mark

shilsen said:


> What do you think?





I think if people's wives, girlfriends and female players would post to gaming message boards as much as the guys and increase their presence at gamestores and conventions, the issue would more rapidly become a thing of the past.


----------



## Hereticus

Mark said:


> I think if people's wives, girlfriends and female players would post to gaming message boards as much as the guys and increase their presence at gamestores and conventions, the issue would more rapidly become a thing of the past.




I agree, diversity is great.

It has been my experience (it may not be representative of the majority) that I higher percentage of female players get into a game as a result of a partner than males.

Last night I went to hear an ex-Buddhist monk speak about a book he had written. He shared a story about Buddhism growing to the United States as a result of male US soldiers bringing home Asian wives. As of today in the US, that religion is no longer female dominant.

With more female gamers starting to play for whatever reason, at some point in the future the mix will hit near equilibrium. But as of today, we are not there yet.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

A data point:

I'm currently running an Eberron campaign in which the heroes are in Xen'drik fighting a _lot_ of giants.  I noticed something odd when I was going through my D&D Miniatures collection to evaluate how many giants and of how many types I have.

DDM has produced six or seven ogres, five or so trolls, three ettins, three hill giants, two stone giants, two frost giants, three fire giants, a cloud giant, a storm giant, an eldritch giant, and a death giant.  (There may be some I'm forgetting, but that's pretty close.)

Of 30 or more giants produced in the DDM line, three are female: two of the ogres and the storm giant.

I found that to be _extremely_ annoying.


----------



## shilsen

Cadfan said:


> Part of the problem is that gaming is, for some people, literally a boy's club to retreat to in order to find a place to fit in.  And they get accustomed to things being that way.
> 
> I'm not against boy's clubs as a general rule.  People being what they are, its cool if they associate in gender segregated groups.  Just look around the lunch room in a school, its how people are.  But people also associate in gender integrated groups, and from my perspective I'd rather D&D was more of the latter than the former.




That's basically my take on it, though I'm probably less keen on gender segregated groups in general.



> I'm less sympathetic to people who have internalized... have gender normative... have... crap.  I'm trying to think of a way to say this without descending into incomprehensible humanities- speak.






I've been studying and teaching humanities at college level for decades now. I feel your pain! 



> People, particularly guys, and particularly guys in a traditionally male dominated context, start to assume that the things specifically included to appeal to males are somehow "normal" and therefore not _actually_ specifically designed to appeal to males.  This bugs me a bit.  You'll get people who look at Barbie and recognize that it's designed to appeal to girls, and then look at a cartoon entitled something like Mega Robot Viking Ninja Explosion Turbo or whatever and cannot, no matter how hard they try, see that this might just be a wee bit aimed at boys as a market.  I think these are the people who are more... "the problem" so to speak, because they don't adjust their behavior when the context changes from "boy's club" to a game with both men and women playing.  They think that their jokes or comments or soft porn artwork are "normal" and not actually gender specific, and blame others, particularly women, for not liking the things and the behavior they do.  If someone ever uses the word "feminazi," chances are you're talking to someone in this category.  Ditto "oversensitive" with reference to women who dislike their behavior.
> 
> Obviously I'm engaging in a bit of generalization here... so please don't regale me with stories of this one girl you know named Suzie who thinks that wandering prostitute charts are totally awesome and wants to play a sex pot rape victim PC in a chainmail bikini unless you think that she's representative.




Too. Much. Agreement.



> So how do I think that modern D&D is doing in this regard?
> 
> I think its mostly doing alright.
> 
> ...




I think D&D's doing a lot better in this regard than it's ever done. Could it do better? I think so.



> Overall, I think that the biggest thing that needs to be done is no longer excising sexism so much as it is including things that appeal to girls and women.  Its why I'd like D&D to take a little more influence from modern fantasy, which is much, much more mixed in terms of the genders to which it appeals.
> 
> ...
> 
> _This is an area of heavy generalization..._




Interesting idea. And, as you say, this is an area of heavy generalization, which is what makes it complicated. 



Mallus said:


> So true!








> Well now that's an interesting observation. The funny thing is CITY (the group's previous campaign setting) was intentionally sexist and racist, and yet the most powerful and influential NPC's encountered during the campaign were women.




I noticed that. 



> CITY was deliberately meant, in part, to be a parody of the less-than-savory aspects of the genre. Would you call CITY less sexist than the Port (the setting for the round-robin)?




I think the CITY setting itself would be equally sexist in that the strong and powerful women seemed to be completely anomalous to the majority of women in the world around them. Just like when Queen Elizabeth I was on the throne and Renaissance England was still a heavily sexist place, because she was unique. 



> With the Port it seems John and I were just following the genre(s). Which would make it fairly sexist, then, I guess .




Goes with the territory, I guess, but I like to mess with the territory.



> Does the fact that it's largely _about_ men --so far, at least-- necessarily mean it's also _for_ men?




I think in theory it doesn't, but in practice it can come across that way.



> I'll post some less personal responses later, assuming this thread doesn't go down in a blaze of politics.




Sure, and I hope not.



> I _think_ I want to make a point about the _gender_ of particular narratives (that some skew male or female, not that's there anything wrong with that). To my mind, the exclusionary part of some game narratives is that they're fundamentally about solving problems with physical violence and looting, not their lack of strong female characters.




Good point, though most of the female players I've seen really enjoy the violence and the looting. 



Umbran said:


> I think that aside from the art, you will be hard pressed to find anything sexist about the core rules of the recent editions.




Mechanically, I agree totally.  



> Campaign worlds have to present a society.  Most of the societies in recorded human history have had strong gender roles.  It is thus actively difficult to produce a game-society that is plausible, but has no trace of sexism.




Difficult, maybe, but not impossible, I think. I used the example of Eberron as one which presents a game-society (one which I think is actually more cohesive than the faux-medieval societies in many other settings) that is both plausible and has no trace of sexism. 



> I have, in the past, been told that the manner of eradicating gender roles can show as much or more sexism (by way of "pandering", among other things) than depicting a realistic moderately sexist culture in the game.  Rock and a hard place, there.




Agreed. One of my examples of a near-perfect way to do it (though not in gaming) is in _Battlestar Galactica_, where rather than pandering to certain gender stereotypes there are characters of every possible kind and nature. And some of them are women and some are men, and their nature doesn't map intrinsically onto their gender, but is merely inflected by it.



> As for EN World - saying there's too much sexism here is rather like saying there's too much sexism in the world.  We have no control over the upbringing and beliefs of individual posters.  Sexism is here because it is in the general population.  You won't fix sexism here, except by fixing it in the general population.




Agreed. But you have to start somewhere, so I might as well start here. After all, I spend more time here than in the general population 



> I have a major logic failure here.  You see, in order to "cater to women", we must have a profile of what women like that is not in the game.  That's a stereotype, and inherently sexist.






Cadfan said:


> Really?
> 
> Do you think that D&D as it exists today caters to men?




As Cadfan's question (I think) and Proserpine later noted, I'm not suggesting that D&D cater specifically to women, for precisely the reason you mention. I think it should just cater _equally_ to women as to men. 



S'mon said:


> I think any meaningful discussion of the issue would violate ENW's 'no politics' provision.
> 
> I do think WotC has been determinedly, even aggressively, anti-sexist in its presentation of D&D.




I think they've done a much better job than they did before, but there are a number of things (small or large, depending on perspective) where there's a fair bit of gender bias. The artwork, the miniatures, etc. 



Remathilis said:


> ...there was no inherent sexism IN THE RULES.
> 
> The artwork, otoh, is a different kettle of fish.




Yup. As noted above, the artwork is one of the things I had in mind when posting this thread.



RefinedBean said:


> Good god, I wish this thread had a humor tag.
> 
> And yeah, D&D is inherently sexist, at least a little bit.  You ever see fantasy pictures of "normal" women?  They're either horridly ugly (and therefore probably a monster in disguise, or Ugly For A Reason) or, at the very least, thin and big-breasted.  Meanwhile, males have a much bigger range.
> 
> It's the same kind of sexism found in most video games and other popular media.  Sex sells, and since you're selling mainly to men, you're going to objectify women at least a wee bit.




And that's the kind of presumption that I don't buy. I think it's possible to sell to men without objectifying women. And I'd much rather that D&D just sold to everyone, male or female.



> This, of course, does NOT mean that the people who play and enjoy D&D are sexist themselves.  We're wayyyy too diverse a group to pigeonhole like that.




I wasn't saying that the individual people who play and enjoy D&D are all sexist. I know there's way too much variety among people who game to make any such comment. But I do think a lot of people who aren't inherently sexist themselves can allow an atmosphere of sexism to exist without realizing or commenting on it.



Jack7 said:


> I can offer a sort of personal observation about all this, in an analogical fashion.
> 
> When I first starting dating my wife, who is black (I am not), she would notice people "looking at us funny a lot."
> 
> ...




Funny you should mention that, since I'm in an interracial relationship (my girlfriend's white and I'm Indian) too.



> Anywho, this is not to say there is no such thing as racism or sexism or whatever the "ism du jour" might be, it's just that it usually isn't the bugbear it appears to be on first blush, and truth be told, you get to know most people, and they're pretty fair. That is they may have motives for their beliefs, even ones I sometimes think wrong, but they may have motives that to them are based on solid principles or based on valid personal experience.




Maybe, but while I can understand why people are sexist or racist or anything of the kind, that doesn't mean I have to think it's a good thing.



> As for the game, I suspect it's much like it is in real life.
> You get the world you set out to make.
> 
> Or the one you'll tolerate anyway.




Right. And this is in part a conversation, I think, about what those of us posting are willing to tolerate. Obviously, our standards differ a lot here.



Hereticus said:


> Marketing
> 
> and
> 
> product
> 
> design
> 
> cater
> 
> to
> 
> a
> 
> target
> 
> audience.




And when marketing and target design change, so does the target audience. Or vice versa. And I figure D&D targeted at an audience of men and women is a good thing.


----------



## ajanders

Are the mechanics of D&D sexist, or are the settings in which those mechanics live sexist?

Put another way, are the core books sexist or is the Forgotten Realms sexist?


----------



## shilsen

> and big-breasted.






Jack7 said:


> I try not to hold that against any female.
> I'm just enlightened that way.




And ... thank you for making my point about what sometimes goes on at ENWorld.


----------



## Umbran

Cadfan said:


> Do you think that D&D as it exists today caters to men?




If, for the moment, we except the art (because that discussion gets complicated very quickly), I don't really believe it inherently caters to men, no.  

The game lacks support in several areas - from watching discussions here and elsewhere, I am not of the opinion that desire for support in those areas is gender-specific.


----------



## Leatherhead

The less sexism I see, the more discrimination based on superficial looks (i.e. clothing, build, and appearance) I see. I think I will dub it "apperancisim" for lack of a better term. If a term for this actually exist, please let me know.

I would elaborate but that would probably push the thread into social commentary. Well, even more so than it already is.


----------



## Silvercat Moonpaw

I'm reading this discussion and I keep feeling like many of the posters understand something about this issue that I'm not getting.  Where and what am I supposed to be looking for?


----------



## Mark

Leatherhead said:


> (. . .) discrimination based on superficial looks (i.e. clothing, build, and appearance) (. . .)





Law.com - Appearance-Based Discrimination Suits Are on the Rise


----------



## roguerouge

Random points:

Does the game appeal to the butch and the tomboy in both sexes? 

A reminder for the thread, according to that Sean K Reynolds post with WotC numbers, 4/5 of gamers are men. 

Wow is this defensive: "Thank god someone so enlightened came by to show us the error of our ways. Really I had no idea this hobby I'd enjoyed for so long was so misogynistic. I guess the female players that I've gamed with since the early 80s were just confused or self-loathing." Look to PCat's response for a better way to respond. 

I tend to agree with PirateCat: the humor of the table is that it was published, but also that gamers need a table for _everything._ I really wouldn't list posting it as an example. (And I'm someone who tends to side with holding gaming companies' feet to the fire on representation.) (Seoni=fan service and so very boring.)

I've not done a sexist society yet in game, but I have done a class-war in game, playing the role of a Union-busting goon and a Robber Baron as a DM. I'm a union man, myself, and I include those figures as antagonists for that very reason. I can easily see someone who takes sexual relations seriously doing the same for their game. Still, it's a good point to draw a distinction between settings and individual games.

A game geared towards men is not evidence of sexism if it lacks significant markers of denigration. The denigration and disrespect are what's key in defining sexism. I don't get upset at the existence of Smith College, for example, nor do I go ballistic at the notion of a guy's night out. 

The problem with WotC modules, in my experience, is that their characters are not people, making their gender representation irrelevant. The NPCs are narrative functions. Paizo modules tend to have the kind of characters where characterization matters. I've not read 4e modules, so this is not an edition war comment.


----------



## Silver Moon

The game is what you make of it.  If you don't want sexism then don't make it sexist.   I've run a series of campaigns set in a fantasy 19th Century Earth (both Western and Pulp genres) using D&D rules.   While I tend to stick with historical facts as much as possible I have greatly expanded the female roles from what was traditiional in that society.   I figure if the world can have elves, dwarves and magic then I don't have to stick to gender roles exactly as they were.   I'd say that it works, as one-third to one-half of my player have always been female, and I've never heard one complaint about that limiting their play.


----------



## Nifft

I think there's sexism because girls have an Int penalty.

"_Why am I still single?_", -- N


----------



## Piratecat

Nifft said:


> I think there's sexism because girls have an Int penalty.
> 
> "_Why am I still single?_", -- N



Really? I thought it was guys.


----------



## Hereticus

Nifft said:


> I think there's sexism because girls have an Int penalty.
> 
> "_Why am I still single?_", -- N




Heh... my wife said that female characters should get an extra standard action, because they multi-task better.

I think that games that included female players have had richer role playing.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

To my eyes, I find very little of the "Bad-Stuff"-ism that shows up in D&D and most other RPGs is codified in game mechanics.  Usually, game mechanics- stats, power availability, roles & archetypes- are gender/race/region/religion neutral (though not necessarily _fantasy_ race/species neutral).

Instead, "Bad-Stuff"-ism is usually found in:

1) Artwork.

2) Fluff meant to simulate the feel of certain RW eras and societies.

3) Players' preconceived notions (sometimes based on history or misconceptions)- as pointed out, the 1Ed chart doesn't state the gender of the prostitutes or pimps- most of us just _assume_ the former are female and the latter are male because, historically speaking, that was the way the statistics shake out.  There are male prostitutes and female pimps, but they're every bit as unusual as male nurses in the 1950s.

4) The actions and attitudes of the players themselves.  If someone at the table insists on sexist (or racist or other "Bad-Stuff"-ist) jokes/commentary that are *both* out of character and irrespective of another player's complaints, its not the game's fault.

The problem isn't the RPGs, its the RW up to which the RPGs hold the metaphorical mirror.


----------



## Darkwolf71

Hereticus said:


> With more female gamers starting to play for whatever reason, at some point in the future the mix will hit near equilibrium. But as of today, we are not there yet.






roguerouge said:


> A reminder for the thread, according to that Sean K Reynolds post with WotC numbers, 4/5 of gamers are men.



These.

The vast majority of gamers are male, so if things tend to be targeted to that audience, is it surprising? It shouldn't be.

Even so, as many have pointed out, the game it's self  is _not_ inherently sexist. Individual campaigns, maybe and an argument could be made for the artwork, but the game mechanics themselves have been well purged of such inequalities. The gender of any given PC or NPC is totally meaningless in game terms. The real question is whether the game is better or worse for it's androgyny.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

Nifft said:


> I think there's sexism because girls have an Int penalty.
> 
> "_Why am I still single?_", -- N





I have to say, there are some bad gamers when it comes to sexism. I once meet a group that wanted to give ALL female characters a -2 str +2cha. Based on the fact that men are stronger but women are cuter (I  you not, they said that to my face, and I am reasonable sure I could have taken half the table in a fair fight). This same group had rules for…well lets just say rolls for intimate moments. I laughed when I herd them and may have been a little insulting.

     However, I don’t think it is the game it self. I started playing at age 8, because a boy I liked played. In the many years since I have continued to play, weather I had a boyfriend playing or not. However at every convention, every game day, and every new group I always find at least one person who asks “Oh, who are you here with?” This year at gameday, another player brought his Girlfriend; she sat next to me to ‘watch’ with me and was very shocked to find I came to play, and new the rules. 

      I have no problem with nudity in the art, or ‘over sexed descriptions’. I have no problem with the lack of female minis (Thank you for putting 1/3 of the new ones as women). I do have a problem with guys that don’t ever grow out of the stupid “Girls don’t do that” mindset.


----------



## Doug McCrae

shilsen said:


> But I also constantly see comments on the site which reinforce the idea of D&D as a boy’s club, where women are an aberration. Whether it be someone trying to be chivalrous and coming across as incredibly misogynistic



Jack7 is old school and not in a good way. He can't be defended here. 



shilsen said:


> or someone very explicitly being exclusionary towards women in their game



The men are the idiots in that example, the woman's blameless. The introduction of a single woman into an all (young, I suspect) male environment made them go all love crazy with eyes like the wolf in a Tex Avery cartoon.



shilsen said:


> or someone arguing that fantasy art is about naked women



Eh, heterosexual men like to look at young attractive women who aren't wearing many clothes. Do they have to keep it a secret?



shilsen said:


> ale and whores



Agree with this one, it's veering close to FATAL territory. Going on about whores like it's all a big jolly romp could easily be off-putting to women.



shilsen said:


> or wandering harlots



Same here, could be straight out of FATAL. I hope when anyone mentions this table they are being ironic or giving an example of how not to write an rpg. But for some, anything to do with D&D pre-1985 gives them a warm fuzzy glow. They love the lot, even the cover of Eldritch Wizardry. Which looks like this, in case you're interested.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re: Female Minis

I've been collecting gaming minis since I started playing in 1977.

As you'd expect, most of them are male, especially the older ones.  However there are increasing numbers of cool female minis.  Whether they're sexist or not varies over time as well, of course.

However, I have noticed that the minis in collectible minis games have a female to male ratio more like the 1980s than the non-collectible mini lines, and most of the female minis tend to be spellcasters and other non-martial types.

While on a certain level, this falls into the "artistic depiction" thing, this also must be categorized as sexism at least partially codified into game mechanics.

CLARIFICATION: I'm not saying that having a dearth of female warriors in a set is inherently sexist.  It does us no good to ignore RW differences between the sexes when examining games partially based on humanity.  By and large, (_human_) women simply aren't as physically big and strong as males.

But RPGs and minis games based on them can't use the RW as an excuse to exclude archetypes.  I want my female berserkers- I love maenads!


----------



## shilsen

mach1.9pants said:


> Yep there is no more sexism in DnD that anywhere in the 'real world' (TM)




Having seen the real world, I would say that's a problem. But then I'm a cynic, albeit an optimistic one.



> but I think a lot less in ENW. I think you are being hyper-sensitive to things which have _changed_. Original DnD held more sexism 'cos it was launched in a sexist time. The fact that you have played as the only male in an otherwise all female group helps prove DnD is _not_ intrinsicly sexist. Yes fantasy art includes a lot of flesh (including male) but thankfully not so much anymore or in DnD.




I don't deny at all that things have changed a lot for the better. While I appreciate that, I'm just suggesting that more needs to change.



> Yes some settings are sexist to an extent.. well surprise surprise that is because they are based on medieval cultures where sexism was mostly the norm.




I've always found that to be a really hollow argument. In my opinion, D&D does not do and has never done authentically medieval settings. If you're trying to do medieval Europe without the fall of the Roman Empire, the rise of Christianity, the Black Death, the interactions with the Middle and Far East, etc then it's not authentically medieval and there's no logical reason the world should look the way it does. Especially with magic and dragons and dwarves and elves. A D&D world, by definition of all it contains, cannot look like medieval Europe. And people constantly ignore and gloss over utterly non-medieval elements in these settings for the sake of gameplay. So holding up sexism as something which must be part of these settings is completely nonsensical and arbitrary to me. 



> And bringing up Pcats harlot table is pathetic, it is brought up *because* is is so anachronistic




As I noted above, I clearly missed the context in which it was brought up and was wrong there.



ajanders said:


> How do we intend to measure sexism?
> Has someone defined a "sexism scale"?




Hey, AJ. Long time no see. 

And no. But I'm working on it. So far I have it running from "Things Shil wouldn't call sexist" to "Things Shil would call really sexist", but I think that needs fine-tuning 



> What would be acceptable as evidence of "not sexism"?




For me, as far as the game is concerned, it would be egalitarian treatment, presentation of and marketing towards people irrespective of gender.



Jeff Wilder said:


> A data point:
> 
> Of 30 or more giants produced in the DDM line, three are female: two of the ogres and the storm giant.
> 
> I found that to be _extremely_ annoying.




I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but that's a case in point. 



Hereticus said:


> With more female gamers starting to play for whatever reason, at some point in the future the mix will hit near equilibrium. But as of today, we are not there yet.




Yup. I may be deluding myself, but I think a little conversation about that is a good idea, hence this thread.



Mark said:


> I think if people's wives, girlfriends and female players would post to gaming message boards as much as the guys and increase their presence at gamestores and conventions, the issue would more rapidly become a thing of the past.




Good point. I think the veneer and presentation of D&D has a lot to do with why women don't do so. On a positive note, just from the anecdotes I hear at ENWorld I gather a lot of people are working (intentionally or not) to change that perception of the game.



ajanders said:


> Are the mechanics of D&D sexist, or are the settings in which those mechanics live sexist?
> 
> Put another way, are the core books sexist or is the Forgotten Realms sexist?




I'd say that the mechanics are definitely not sexist. But I think some of the settings and the presentation of females in those settings are sexist. Often subtly so. For example, sometimes they are presented in faux-medieval fashion and women are presented as much less likely to be in prominent social roles than men. I can't speak of FR specifically, since it's been years since I looked at it.



Umbran said:


> If, for the moment, we except the art (because that discussion gets complicated very quickly), I don't really believe it inherently caters to men, no.




I obviously (and I think Cadfan does too) beg to differ, but I'm definitely including the artwork in my opinion as well.



> The game lacks support in several areas - from watching discussions here and elsewhere, I am not of the opinion that desire for support in those areas is gender-specific.




That's an interesting point. What sort of support were you referring to?



Leatherhead said:


> The less sexism I see, the more discrimination based on superficial looks (i.e. clothing, build, and appearance) I see. I think I will dub it "apperancisim" for lack of a better term. If a term for this actually exist, please let me know.
> 
> I would elaborate but that would probably push the thread into social commentary. Well, even more so than it already is.




Heh! As you note, I think we're already into social commentary here, but mostly social commentary based on the game and its players (and, I guess, publishers). On the appearance thing, I would associate that with sexism too, since the influence of appearance on women and how they're perceived socially is much higher than on men. Certainly in the USA, which I'm mostly focusing on here.

And since we exist in soeciety, I think that moves over into gaming and the people who game too. I often see comments on ENWorld like Jack7's comment above, subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) objectifying women in general and female gamers in particular. But I rarely, if ever, see comments which do the same to men. I've seen threads, albeit very rare ones, discussing how hot female gamers are but nothing of the kind regarding men. I've heard female gamers mention really creepy and bad experiences at gaming conventions, but can't remember any man mentioning anything of the kind. So yes, this is a social problem, but it's one which finds its way into gaming too.



SilvercatMoonpaw2 said:


> I'm reading this discussion and I keep feeling like many of the posters understand something about this issue that I'm not getting.  Where and what am I supposed to be looking for?




I'm not sure that's what you're asking, but the sort of stuff I'm referring to in my original post and elsewhere is mostly language, attitudes and marketing which works on the presumption that males are the default and females are somehow the other. I see it fairly regularly, but evidently many (most?) people don't.



roguerouge said:


> Random points:
> 
> Does the game appeal to the butch and the tomboy in both sexes?




I don't think so, partly because of the variety of ways in which D&D can be played. I've seen men and women of drastically different natures, tastes and attitudes enjoy the game, sometimes in the same group. I think D&D can be marketed so as to appeal to a much larger volume and wider cross-section of people than it currently does.



> A reminder for the thread, according to that Sean K Reynolds post with WotC numbers, 4/5 of gamers are men.




Good to know. I'm presuming that is the highest percentage of women playing D&D than has ever been the case, and I think it could be increased substantially.



> I tend to agree with PirateCat: the humor of the table is that it was published, but also that gamers need a table for _everything._ I really wouldn't list posting it as an example. (And I'm someone who tends to side with holding gaming companies' feet to the fire on representation.)




I already admitted that was an error, but since I made it, I figure I might as well leave it up there.



> I've not done a sexist society yet in game, but I have done a class-war in game, playing the role of a Union-busting goon and a Robber Baron as a DM. I'm a union man, myself, and I include those figures as antagonists for that very reason. I can easily see someone who takes sexual relations seriously doing the same for their game. Still, it's a good point to draw a distinction between settings and individual games.




Sounds like a fun game. And definitely agreed about the distinction.



> A game geared towards men is not evidence of sexism if it lacks significant markers of denigration. The denigration and disrespect are what's key in defining sexism.




I will quibble a little with that as far as my personal definition of sexism is concerned. I have some issues with treating any gender as the default in most (though not all) cases, since I usually see no rational need to do so, and because even if there's no explicit denigration there's an exclusionary vibe which I don't care for.

Where D&D is concerned, I just find it ludicrous that a game based heavily on using your imagination is seen (or was ever seen, though I understand the historical reasons for it) as something predominantly for any one gender.



Silver Moon said:


> The game is what you make of it.  If you don't want sexism then don't make it sexist.   I've run a series of campaigns set in a fantasy 19th Century Earth (both Western and Pulp genres) using D&D rules.   While I tend to stick with historical facts as much as possible I have greatly expanded the female roles from what was traditiional in that society.   I figure if the world can have elves, dwarves and magic then I don't have to stick to gender roles exactly as they were.




Agreed totally. I have (as noted above) major issues with sexism being justified on the basis of historical accuracy. If someone is creative enough to have a historical world which includes magic and fantasy monsters and races, they're probably creative enough to do without sexism in it. Unless they want it to be there.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Proserpine said:


> Part of the point is that there's no inherent reason for D&D to cater mostly to its male audience.



I disagree. I don't think roleplaying games in their current form (and I refer to content not presentation) can ever appeal to women anything like as strongly as they appeal to men. They are way too combat heavy, way too system heavy and way too number heavy.

I'm not saying girls can't do math, or that female geeks don't exist or that women can't be interested in some number-oriented activity like Bingo or Bridge. But in ttrpgs numbers fly around like clouds of bats, many of them serving no purpose whatsoever. You have to f---ing love them to play in a way few women do.

Rpgs that do appeal to women more are mmorpgs and Murder Mystery.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Random thoughts on sexism in D&D:

The first thought that comes to mind is that I've advised and played in a gaming club at an all-girls school where I taught. There were no significant differences between those games and any of the zillion other coed and all-guys games I've played in.

The second thought that comes to mind is that men and women are different. And they're not different solely because of socialization. The world is sexist. Nancy Hopkins notwithstanding, studies from Simon Baron-Cohen to Michael Gurian show that boys and girls and men and women tend to have different brains in sex-correlated ways. That says nothing about any individual, of course.

My third thought is that D&D needs a good healthy dose of Camille Paglia- and Wendy McElroy-style feminism. Pro-beauty, pro-cheesecake, pro-woman feminism. We have to keep in mind - I applaud you, Shilsen, for avoiding humanities-speak despite being immersed in it! - that there are many forms of feminism.

I also think that one of the great glories of D&D is that it can play differently with each group. Folks should play how they want. 

The point about DDM is a good one. There really are far too few female giants. And other races for that matter. Of course, there are far too few noncombat villager/noble/miner/etc. minis for my taste, too.

Another random thought is that in the original post, Shilsen, you seem to be implying that many in the USA are more "sexist" - that is, believe that women are inherently inferior to men - than many in most other countries. This is wildly incorrect. I may just be reading your post wrong, though.

The harlot table is great fun. It's a great example of sex in D&D that is humorous, fun, and in no way harming, demeaning, or belittling one sex or another.

If we take sexism to mean the idea that one sex is inherently superior to the other, then I think D&D is explicitly anti-sexist. Nor is it implicitly sexist.

If, on the other hand, we more generously, and I think more wisely, take sexism to mean making reasonable judgments regarding sex and sexual differences, then D&D could use a little more of it. I like romance and sexual tension, and there has been precious little of it in official D&D products over the lifetime of our hobby. On the other hand, RPGs may not be a good medium for it, as Blue Rose et al. did not exactly take over the industry lead.


----------



## Mark

shilsen said:


> I think the veneer and presentation of D&D has a lot to do with why women don't do so.





Yup.  I think the best way to counter that is to be a vocal, recognizable portion of the market (that publishers would be loath to offend).


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

Doug McCrae said:


> I disagree. I don't think roleplaying games in their current form (and I refer to content not presentation) can ever appeal to women anything like as strongly as they appeal to men. They are way too combat heavy, way too system heavy and way too number heavy.
> 
> I'm not saying girls can't do math, or that female geeks don't exist or that women can't be interested in some number-oriented activity like Bingo or Bridge. But in ttrpgs numbers fly around like clouds of bats, many of them serving no purpose whatsoever. You have to f---ing love them to play in a way few women do.
> 
> Rpgs that do appeal to women more are mmorpgs and Murder Mystery.





Wow, just wow.

      I see Monty python and Jedi theories thrown around as much as numbers. I have never seen a group of women be less math natured then men. I guess you just see something that I don’t. But to be honest, I am a little insulted. I have been playing 4e for a little over 2 months, before that 3rd for 8, maybe 9 years, and 2 nd before that. I have never seen ‘numbers’ turn anyone off to the game. I have seen guys re add there numbers 10 times in one game, no matter how many times I say “YOU HAVE A +22…roll then ADD 22” when they are saying “+1 base, +2 magic, +4 buff spell, + 4 Power attack, wait times 2 for two handed that is +8, wait did I add my +2 magic in”


----------



## Doug McCrae

On the issue of sexist art:

For men, appearance is a much more important factor in sexual attraction than it is for women. Sure women like to look at George Clooney but the actor's appeal with the opposite sex is, imo, based on a wider variety of traits than looks alone.

So visual art is inherently sexist. By choosing to create a picture one has chosen a medium which appeals more to male sexual desire than to female.


----------



## Proserpine

Doug McCrae said:


> I disagree. I don't think roleplaying games in their current form (and I refer to content not presentation) can ever appeal to women anything like as strongly as they appeal to men. They are way too combat heavy, way too system heavy and way too number heavy.
> 
> I'm not saying girls can't do math, or that female geeks don't exist or that women can't be interested in some number-oriented activity like Bingo or Bridge. But in ttrpgs numbers fly around like clouds of bats, many of them serving no purpose whatsoever. You have to f---ing love them to play in a way few women do.
> 
> Rpgs that do appeal to women more are mmorpgs and Murder Mystery.




I'm damn girly and hate math, but my favorite part of D&D is the combat. Women like blowing things up too. Really. If you're dealing with female geeks, my only generalization is that they'd be even more likely than the average woman to like adventuring and killing stuff. World of Warcraft has a very large number of female participants, and there are no mysteries, romances, or viable creativity being fostered by that game. 

Some rpgs may revolve mostly around numbers, but a lot of the "oh women just don't like it" arguments seem to largely ignore the creative aspect of the game. And you mention MMORPGS - I have a lot more experience with them than I do ttrpgs. The aforementioned WoW, for instance, is all about min/maxing if you do any raiding or PvP. That involves... ah, numbers.

In short, there's nothing inherently "manly" about D&D.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

Doug McCrae said:


> On the issue of sexist art:
> 
> For men, appearance is a much more important factor in sexual attraction than it is for women. Sure women like to look at George Clooney but the actor's appeal with the opposite sex is, imo, based on a wider variety of traits than looks alone.
> 
> So visual art is inherently sexist. By choosing to create a picture one has a chosen a medium which appeals more to male sexual desire than it does to women.




Yea, spoken like a guy that buys all the BS ‘proper’ ladies, and  gentlemen tell you. Do you really think when I look at Fabio, or Triple H, or Sean Connery (old enough to be my grand father and I would still…err never mind) I am thinking what a great soul mate, and the conversations we might have???

    In the year 2009 we need to stop this. PEOPLE are different, some guys like to be sweet, some women go to strip clubs (You know to talk to those chip and dale dancers).


----------



## NewJeffCT

Jeff Wilder said:


> A data point:
> 
> I'm currently running an Eberron campaign in which the heroes are in Xen'drik fighting a _lot_ of giants.  I noticed something odd when I was going through my D&D Miniatures collection to evaluate how many giants and of how many types I have.
> 
> DDM has produced six or seven ogres, five or so trolls, three ettins, three hill giants, two stone giants, two frost giants, three fire giants, a cloud giant, a storm giant, an eldritch giant, and a death giant.  (There may be some I'm forgetting, but that's pretty close.)
> 
> Of 30 or more giants produced in the DDM line, three are female: two of the ogres and the storm giant.
> 
> I found that to be _extremely_ annoying.




And, in a similar veing I just had a new player join my gaming group - she is an experienced gamer and the girlfriend of one of my other players.   Her character is going to be a goliath barbarian... so, I figured, I would search eBay and buy a female goliath figure for her.  No luck, there is no female goliath figure, though there are at least 3 male goliath figures.

So, I was stuck looking for a tall female human mini that didn't look too scrawny, as most female minis that are tall enough (like the Confrontation Fiannas) are built like supermodels and not a strong woman with muscle.  I wasn't even looking for a female bodybuilder - just something that was tall and wasn't too skinny.  I searched every single mini designer listed on CMON, but none suitable for being a 7 1/2 foot tall barbarian woman.  Heck, I even looked at some 54mm scale minis.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Ycore Rixle said:


> If, on the other hand, we more generously, and I think more wisely, take sexism to mean making reasonable judgments regarding sex and sexual differences, then D&D could use a little more of it. I like romance and sexual tension, and there has been precious little of it in official D&D products over the lifetime of our hobby. On the other hand, RPGs may not be a good medium for it, as Blue Rose et al. did not exactly take over the industry lead.




I. for one, am glad that D&D ahs steered clear of sex and relationships from the get go. Part of that is the escapist part of D&D for me, that stuff is messy enough in real life I don't want it in my game. My games have some realism, but not that much, not by a loing shot, butthen again my games fall on the roll wide of roleplaying. 

As a second thought, one reason I do not want this kind of sex rule framework is it seems most of the horro storeis female gamers tell about (including one in this very thread) focus on those kind of 'rules' that groups make up on their own. 

Plus can you imagine what a bad rep D&'D would get if it had an 'unintended pregnancy table' or the like? I shudder to think.


----------



## Leatherhead

Doug McCrae said:


> I disagree. I don't think roleplaying games in their current form (and I refer to content not presentation) can ever appeal to women anything like as strongly as they appeal to men. They are way too combat heavy, way too system heavy and way too number heavy.
> 
> I'm not saying girls can't do math, or that female geeks don't exist or that women can't be interested in some number-oriented activity like Bingo or Bridge. But in ttrpgs numbers fly around like clouds of bats, many of them serving no purpose whatsoever. You have to f---ing love them to play in a way few women do.
> 
> Rpgs that do appeal to women more are mmorpgs and Murder Mystery.




You seem to be vastly underestimating the amount of "mathiness" and combat in MMORPGS.


----------



## roguerouge

Doug McCrae said:


> On the issue of sexist art:
> 
> For men, appearance is a much more important factor in sexual attraction than it is for women. Sure women like to look at George Clooney but the actor's appeal with the opposite sex is, imo, based on a wider variety of traits than looks alone.




Thank god. Unfortunately, I've never known that to be true. 



Doug McCrae said:


> So visual art is inherently sexist. By choosing to create a picture one has a chosen a medium which appeals more to male sexual desire than to female.




And thus pottery, innuendo and perfumes are inherently anti-male? Not sure I follow you here either.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Dice4Hire said:


> Plus can you imagine what a bad rep D&'D would get if it had an 'unintended pregnancy table' or the like? I shudder to think.




Lol, indeed. For the record, I didn't have anything like that in mind! I think one of the reasons romance and sexual tension haven't been done is the difficulty in doing them well. And like I said, maybe RPGs just aren't the medium for it.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

shilsen said:


> [30 DDM giants, only three of them female.]
> I'm not sure if you're being facetious or not, but that's a case in point.



I wasn't being facetious.  It annoys me.  I'd like to include female NPCs and combatants in encounters, and to do so I have to use male miniatures.  There's really no explanation for the disparity _except_ sexism, of the so-subtle-we're-not-even-aware-we're-sexist variety.


----------



## roguerouge

Sorry, but the most current evidence I've been able to find indicates that DnD has more women than World of Warcraft does: "According to one of Yee's 2005 studies, 84 percent of "World of Warcraft" players are male, and 16 percent are female. The average player's age is 28, and female players tend to be a few years older than male players."

The Daedalus Project: WoW Basic Demographics


----------



## roguerouge

Dice4Hire said:


> Plus can you imagine what a bad rep D&'D would get if it had an 'unintended pregnancy table' or the like? I shudder to think.




Actually, there is: the Book of Erotic Fantasy, which, actually, I've used. Some useful bits in there. In addition, as long as there have been netbooks, there've been attempts to incorporate adult content into the game.


----------



## Gog

I used to think I wasn't sexist toward woman playing. It didn't matter to me what sex, race, etc they were. What did matter was they showered and could add fairly quickly. However I had that proven wrong about 3 years ago. 

I was holding an RPGA convention and on the last day a very nice looking lady came to the the reg table and said she needed to register. My first thought was "I wonder who her boyfriend is" (yeah really, I'm sorry) Turns out she was there to play, had a mid-level character and wanted to get in on a couple games before heading home. I talked to her a little afterwards she was an exotic dancer and took her PC's with her when she traveled for jobs. 

I honestly didn't realize that I thought like that till then, it was a bit of a shock.


----------



## pawsplay

People often bristle at the term sexism. I think in many cases, when someone hears that term, perhaps even aimed at their behavior, they are hearing stuff like bigotry, oppression, and so forth. I think it is very difficult for some people to understand that sexism can refer to gender-based centrism. Precisely because men hold the (generally, mostly) dominant position in society, and because masculine values are considered to be simply values, and because gaming is demographically skewed toward males, there are a lot of male gamers who are generally incapable of understanding how their lack of mental flexibility makes it hard to see sexism. It is not because a person necessarily is acting from malice or to be patronizing, or because they are ignorant. It is because they are male, and our society socializes men and women differently, and they have not yet made the jouryney in the other gender's moccasins. If they are white, and most are, they have the double whammy of having perhaps never been in the less privileged class, so not only do they lack the experience of being a woman, they lack the experience of dealing with dominant privilege altogether. And they don't know that they lack this experience. Being culturally sensitive is just not that common. 

And the someone will turn around and say, "I am white and male and I am not androcentric." And I will tell them they are wrong. Then they will say I am accusing them. And I will say, "No, I am stating what is most likely the truth. Because I am sexist and racist. And you are sexist and racist. Everyone is. The world could not function, not even for an hour, without stereotypes. And all of us get through the day a little easier because we lean on our prejudices, which reduces the anxiety we feel about this big, confusing, diverse, and threatening world. So I know, if every truly culturally sensitive person I know is willing to admit that they themselves struggle with their own issues, that you, my friend, have issues of your own." 

Being sensitive is not about sainthood, or doing or saying the right thing. You really, truly cannot go through life without offending someone because people are not predictable in that way. It will happen. The point is to be flexible. You have to look at your own issues. And you have to empathize with the other person, not just to give them your concern, but actually try to understand them. There are tons of people in this world who will care for you, but to be known is something rare and wonderful. 

While I hesitate to generalize, my general assumption is the less you perceive prejudice, the more likely you are swimming in it. If you think ENworld and the rest of the online RPG community is dandy as it is, you have identified with the privileged culture. If you think "neutrality" and "civil" behavior protect people's feelings, you have not been oppressed. 

It's a rare week when I don't see some comment on ENWorld that does not deserve to be held up to the light of day. Just because I know there is nothing to be gained by breaking the rules, or derailing a thread, or detracting from the focus of the site, or arguing with a stranger on the 'Net does not mean I am satisfied. I just accept it.

If you don't walk through life with that sadness, you are privileged and blessed.


----------



## Cadfan

Proserpine said:


> Women like blowing things up too. Really. If you're dealing with female geeks, my only generalization is that they'd be even more likely than the average woman to like adventuring and killing stuff. World of Warcraft has a very large number of female participants, and there are no mysteries, romances, or viable creativity being fostered by that game.



Not to completely disagree, but this isn't exactly about "female geeks" to the extent that "female geeks" means "women who already like D&D."  Its about women who might like roleplaying if it weren't presented as a male power fantasy about hewing ogres in twain with your massive biceps or sneering at the muscular jock types while raining magical fire upon them with your massive intellect and/or innate specialness.

Its about all the girls out there reading Valdemar books who might give roleplaying games a chance if things were a little different both in terms of the sorts of games the publishers create, as well as the general culture of people who already play.  At least that's what its about for me when I enter into these conversations.


----------



## FreeTheSlaves

I had a mixed time introducing d&d to my wife. 

While initially interested, she flipped through the books & didn't like the female art. She eventually made up her character because I made a point to steer her away from the d&d art, stressing it was not a look that I'd present or encourage, and she should stick to the look she had in mind. 

Interestingly, when she went to look at various fantasy art from female artists, she saw it all again. 

My daughter is already interested in d&d and while I'm delighted I'll be taking steps to protect her from the objectification.


----------



## Cadfan

roguerouge said:


> Sorry, but the most current evidence I've been able to find indicates that DnD has more women than World of Warcraft does: "According to one of Yee's 2005 studies, 84 percent of "World of Warcraft" players are male, and 16 percent are female. The average player's age is 28, and female players tend to be a few years older than male players."
> 
> The Daedalus Project: WoW Basic Demographics



You can't draw inferences about absolute numbers from data about percentages without information about the size of the population from which the percentages were taken.

I have no particular dog in this fight and know nothing about the demographics of World of Warcraft, but just sayin' 's all.


----------



## pawsplay

Cadfan said:


> Not to completely disagree, but this isn't exactly about "female geeks" to the extent that "female geeks" means "women who already like D&D."  Its about women who might like roleplaying if it weren't presented as a male power fantasy about hewing ogres in twain with your massive biceps or sneering at the muscular jock types while raining magical fire upon them with your massive intellect and/or innate specialness.
> 
> Its about all the girls out there reading Valdemar books who might give roleplaying games a chance if things were a little different both in terms of the sorts of games the publishers create, as well as the general culture of people who already play.  At least that's what its about for me when I enter into these conversations.




That's an important shift in what role-playing is/has become/could be. RPGs meant, for a long time, fantasy wargaming. I personally think of myself as a fantasy wargamer. But there are other worlds of role-playing out there that have nothing to do with mortal conflict or simulation.


----------



## Proserpine

Cadfan said:


> Not to completely disagree, but this isn't exactly about "female geeks" to the extent that "female geeks" means "women who already like D&D."  Its about women who might like roleplaying if it weren't presented as a male power fantasy about hewing ogres in twain with your massive biceps or sneering at the muscular jock types while raining magical fire upon them with your massive intellect and/or innate specialness.
> 
> Its about all the girls out there reading Valdemar books who might give roleplaying games a chance if things were a little different both in terms of the sorts of games the publishers create, as well as the general culture of people who already play.  At least that's what its about for me when I enter into these conversations.




That's certainly a more productive direction to take the conversation in. I agree, especially considering I was really reluctant to try D&D for the "male power fantasy..." stuff you mentioned.


----------



## HardcoreDandDGirl

roguerouge said:


> Actually, there is: the Book of Erotic Fantasy, which, actually, I've used. Some useful bits in there. In addition, as long as there have been netbooks, there've been attempts to incorporate adult content into the game.




As long as everyone knows what to expect this is fine, I have been in groups that used the Book of Erotic Fantasy (S&M D&D), infact I played in a campaign world based on it (Can’t imagine how the game feel apart after the 7th or 8th session) for a small time. However in my current group I have one jerk player who might as well be 15 still, and a real 15 year old kid who already doesn’t know how to handle having a ‘girl’ in the room. So I would have to avoid that stuff



FreeTheSlaves said:


> My daughter is already interested in d&d and while I'm delighted I'll be taking steps to protect her from the objectification.




How old of a daughter are we talking, there are many ways to have child friendly games. There is even another conversation about a young girl RPG lower on the page here…


----------



## Dice4Hire

roguerouge said:


> Actually, there is: the Book of Erotic Fantasy, which, actually, I've used. Some useful bits in there. In addition, as long as there have been netbooks, there've been attempts to incorporate adult content into the game.




The original topic was more geared towards official WOTC products. 3pp or fans have published stuff I am sure WOTC would prefer never to have had associated with D&D.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Dannyalcatraz said:


> the 1Ed chart doesn't state the gender of the prostitutes or pimps



There can't be any doubt about the gender of the wanton wench, aged madam and sly procuress. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, strumpet refers to a woman prostitute, though other dictionaries merely give prostitute as the definition. It gives the same meaning for trull, which most dictionaries define as female. According to Dictionary.com a trollop is always female, as is a doxy.

In the paragraph below the table Gary writes, "An expensive doxy will resemble a gentlewoman, a haughty courtesan a noblewoman, the other harlots might be mistaken for goodwives, and so forth." Which seems to indicate they are all women.


----------



## Ariosto

Shilsen might find a much readier target in, for instance, Witch Girls Adventures.


----------



## Lanefan

NewJeffCT said:


> And, in a similar veing I just had a new player join my gaming group - she is an experienced gamer and the girlfriend of one of my other players.   Her character is going to be a goliath barbarian... so, I figured, I would search eBay and buy a female goliath figure for her.  No luck, there is no female goliath figure, though there are at least 3 male goliath figures.



Stupid question: the character she's bringing in to the game *is* female, right?

Player gender and character gender don't always follow suit.

Lan-"I'm male; the ratio of PCs I'm currently playing is female 2, male 0"-efan


----------



## roguerouge

Cadfan said:


> You can't draw inferences about absolute numbers from data about percentages without information about the size of the population from which the percentages were taken.
> 
> I have no particular dog in this fight and know nothing about the demographics of World of Warcraft, but just sayin' 's all.




A greater proportion is what I meant.


----------



## shilsen

By the way, I should mention that I'm really glad that this conversation has been so civil thus far, especially since it's such a strongly polarizing topic. Thanks, everyone, whether we agree or not. I may be critiquing ENWorld in the opening post, but there's no denying that I really like this place as a forum for intelligent discussion about gaming.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> The problem isn't the RPGs, its the RW up to which the RPGs hold the metaphorical mirror.




True, perhaps, but I think we can choose what we hold the mirror up to in our individual games, and hopefully improve the gaming community in that regard too. 



Darkwolf71 said:


> The vast majority of gamers are male, so if things tend to be targeted to that audience, is it surprising? It shouldn't be.




I don't think I ever said it was surprising. I just think it's unfortunate that there's not more of an effort to expand that audience and to treat it in a more intelligent and egalitarian manner.



HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> I have to say, there are some bad gamers when it comes to sexism. I once meet a group that wanted to give ALL female characters a -2 str +2cha. Based on the fact that men are stronger but women are cuter (I  you not, they said that to my face, and I am reasonable sure I could have taken half the table in a fair fight). This same group had rules for…well lets just say rolls for intimate moments. I laughed when I herd them and may have been a little insulting.




Just a little? Pity. 



> I do have a problem with guys that don’t ever grow out of the stupid “Girls don’t do that” mindset.




Amen.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> But RPGs and minis games based on them can't use the RW as an excuse to exclude archetypes.  I want my female berserkers- I love maenads!




Agreed. And I'd go further and say that the real world is not an excuse to exclude _people_.



Doug McCrae said:


> I disagree. I don't think roleplaying games in their current form (and I refer to content not presentation) can ever appeal to women anything like as strongly as they appeal to men. They are way too combat heavy, way too system heavy and way too number heavy.
> 
> I'm not saying girls can't do math, or that female geeks don't exist or that women can't be interested in some number-oriented activity like Bingo or Bridge. But in ttrpgs numbers fly around like clouds of bats, many of them serving no purpose whatsoever. You have to f---ing love them to play in a way few women do.
> 
> Rpgs that do appeal to women more are mmorpgs and Murder Mystery.




Wow! That's just so reductionist and sexist that I don't have much to say on the subject, but it looks like some people have already done so above. 



Ycore Rixle said:


> Another random thought is that in the original post, Shilsen, you seem to be implying that many in the USA are more "sexist" - that is, believe that women are inherently inferior to men - than many in most other countries. This is wildly incorrect. I may just be reading your post wrong, though.




Ah, that's not what I was implying. I was simply making the point that I was mostly focusing on the USA in talking about society here, and I think the there's a great deal of sexism in the USA (more than in some countries, less than in others). I should also note that there's a prevailing notion, I think, that sexism is dead or very limited in the US, and this leads to people often missing how extant it still is.



Doug McCrae said:


> On the issue of sexist art:
> 
> For men, appearance is a much more important factor in sexual attraction than it is for women. Sure women like to look at George Clooney but the actor's appeal with the opposite sex is, imo, based on a wider variety of traits than looks alone.
> 
> So visual art is inherently sexist. By choosing to create a picture one has chosen a medium which appeals more to male sexual desire than to female.




And a second - Wow! That's a brilliant example of the kind of sexism which permeates our society. But HardcoreDandDGirl said everything that needs to be said about it, I think.



Jeff Wilder said:


> I wasn't being facetious.  It annoys me.  I'd like to include female NPCs and combatants in encounters, and to do so I have to use male miniatures.  There's really no explanation for the disparity _except_ sexism, of the so-subtle-we're-not-even-aware-we're-sexist variety.




Thanks for the clarifier. And I agree. It's that sort of subtle sexism which especially bugs me, since it's so hard to have a conversation about it, because the people evincing it often don't even see what they're doing/saying. 



roguerouge said:


> Sorry, but the most current evidence I've been able to find indicates that DnD has more women than World of Warcraft does: "According to one of Yee's 2005 studies, 84 percent of "World of Warcraft" players are male, and 16 percent are female. The average player's age is 28, and female players tend to be a few years older than male players."
> 
> The Daedalus Project: WoW Basic Demographics




Interesting. I wonder how accurate that is and whether the numbers are still the same now in 2009.



Gog said:


> I used to think I wasn't sexist toward woman playing. It didn't matter to me what sex, race, etc they were. What did matter was they showered and could add fairly quickly. However I had that proven wrong about 3 years ago.
> 
> I was holding an RPGA convention and on the last day a very nice looking lady came to the the reg table and said she needed to register. My first thought was "I wonder who her boyfriend is" (yeah really, I'm sorry) Turns out she was there to play, had a mid-level character and wanted to get in on a couple games before heading home. I talked to her a little afterwards she was an exotic dancer and took her PC's with her when she traveled for jobs.
> 
> I honestly didn't realize that I thought like that till then, it was a bit of a shock.




Thanks for the story, Gog. I daresay there are a few people posting here on ENWorld who don't think they are sexist simply because they haven't had an experience like yours or been self-reflexive enough on the subject. 



Cadfan said:


> Not to completely disagree, but this isn't exactly about "female geeks" to the extent that "female geeks" means "women who already like D&D."  Its about women who might like roleplaying if it weren't presented as a male power fantasy about hewing ogres in twain with your massive biceps or sneering at the muscular jock types while raining magical fire upon them with your massive intellect and/or innate specialness.
> 
> Its about all the girls out there reading Valdemar books who might give roleplaying games a chance if things were a little different both in terms of the sorts of games the publishers create, as well as the general culture of people who already play.  At least that's what its about for me when I enter into these conversations.




Good point. Thinking outside the boundaries (many of them quite arbitrary) which have been established in gaming and esp. D&D can't be a bad thing, in my estimation.



FreeTheSlaves said:


> My daughter is already interested in d&d and while I'm delighted I'll be taking steps to protect her from the objectification.




Sounds like you're on the way already. Awareness is half the battle won, in my estimation.



pawsplay said:


> That's an important shift in what role-playing is/has become/could be. RPGs meant, for a long time, fantasy wargaming. I personally think of myself as a fantasy wargamer. But there are other worlds of role-playing out there that have nothing to do with mortal conflict or simulation.




True. I tend to mostly be a fantasy wargamer too, but I'm aware there are other options, and I'm also aware that I can mould the games I play to reflect what I think they can/should be.


----------



## roguerouge

HardcoreDandDGirl said:


> As long as everyone knows what to expect this is fine, I have been in groups that used the Book of Erotic Fantasy (S&M D&D), infact I played in a campaign world based on it (Can’t imagine how the game feel apart after the 7th or 8th session) for a small time. However in my current group I have one jerk player who might as well be 15 still, and a real 15 year old kid who already doesn’t know how to handle having a ‘girl’ in the room. So I would have to avoid that stuff




Well, yes, good DMs tailor their stories to the capabilities of their players. And the basics of magical birth control, fertility, and abortion were what were specifically used. The speculative stuff on various races' fertility and sexual practices were interesting at times, but weren't used explicitly. 

For example, the Paizo take on goblins having short food supply and neglectful child-raising habits were interesting, but combining it with the fecundity described in BoEF made for a clearer picture of the reasons why goblins raided so frequently beyond the alignment line in the MM. Both those sources helped me "get" goblins.


----------



## shilsen

pawsplay said:


> People often bristle at the term sexism. I think in many cases, when someone hears that term, perhaps even aimed at their behavior, they are hearing stuff like bigotry, oppression, and so forth. I think it is very difficult for some people to understand that sexism can refer to gender-based centrism. Precisely because men hold the (generally, mostly) dominant position in society, and because masculine values are considered to be simply values, and because gaming is demographically skewed toward males, there are a lot of male gamers who are generally incapable of understanding how their lack of mental flexibility makes it hard to see sexism. It is not because a person necessarily is acting from malice or to be patronizing, or because they are ignorant. It is because they are male, and our society socializes men and women differently, and they have not yet made the jouryney in the other gender's moccasins. If they are white, and most are, they have the double whammy of having perhaps never been in the less privileged class, so not only do they lack the experience of being a woman, they lack the experience of dealing with dominant privilege altogether. And they don't know that they lack this experience. Being culturally sensitive is just not that common.
> 
> And the someone will turn around and say, "I am white and male and I am not androcentric." And I will tell them they are wrong. Then they will say I am accusing them. And I will say, "No, I am stating what is most likely the truth. Because I am sexist and racist. And you are sexist and racist. Everyone is. The world could not function, not even for an hour, without stereotypes. And all of us get through the day a little easier because we lean on our prejudices, which reduces the anxiety we feel about this big, confusing, diverse, and threatening world. So I know, if every truly culturally sensitive person I know is willing to admit that they themselves struggle with their own issues, that you, my friend, have issues of your own."
> 
> Being sensitive is not about sainthood, or doing or saying the right thing. You really, truly cannot go through life without offending someone because people are not predictable in that way. It will happen. The point is to be flexible. You have to look at your own issues. And you have to empathize with the other person, not just to give them your concern, but actually try to understand them. There are tons of people in this world who will care for you, but to be known is something rare and wonderful.
> 
> While I hesitate to generalize, my general assumption is the less you perceive prejudice, the more likely you are swimming in it. If you think ENworld and the rest of the online RPG community is dandy as it is, you have identified with the privileged culture. If you think "neutrality" and "civil" behavior protect people's feelings, you have not been oppressed.
> 
> It's a rare week when I don't see some comment on ENWorld that does not deserve to be held up to the light of day. Just because I know there is nothing to be gained by breaking the rules, or derailing a thread, or detracting from the focus of the site, or arguing with a stranger on the 'Net does not mean I am satisfied. I just accept it.
> 
> If you don't walk through life with that sadness, you are privileged and blessed.




Seconded, thirded, and fourthed. You just explained a lot of the preconceptions I'm working with, far more succinctly and articulately than I could. Thank you. 

P.S. Experience points sent your way.


----------



## Nifft

IMHO, and with apologies for abusing some other dude's terminology, the emergence of sexism in RPGs is a function of two things: *Simulationism* and [/b]Narration[/b]. That it has been largely removed from many of the most popular RPGs is a function of the triumph of *Gamism*.

Basically, simulationism demands that the difference between girls and boys be quantified.

Narration demands that certain roles be filled -- and the maiden in distress role may be just as important as the knight in armor role, but one's just a bit more fun to enact.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Jack7

I think I'd rather see a female severely injured in combat than good at math. The one I could live with, no problem, the other is just plain kinda scary.

Does that make me a bad person?


----------



## Mouseferatu

Jack7 said:


> I think I'd rather see a female severely injured in combat than good at math. The one I could live with, no problem, the other is just plain kinda scary.
> 
> Does that make me a bad person?




Assuming you aren't being facetious...

Yes. I'd say it does.

So far, this thread has been remarkably polite and even-keeled. Why would you try to ruin that with a deliberately smarmy, insulting comment like that?


----------



## Piratecat

Jack7 said:


> I think I'd rather see a female severely injured in combat than good at math. The one I could live with, no problem, the other is just plain kinda scary.
> 
> Does that make me a bad person?



Bye, Jack.


----------



## ajanders

Shilsen:
To address some of your points.

1. Non-sexist advertising.
Frankly, the first thing that comes to mind is that there should be some advertising. Anywhere.
I think the only place I've seen D&D stuff advertised is in RPG magazines and on RPG websites...and in Amazon recommendations triggered by the fact I bought D&D books from them.
Is there any D&D advertising at all? I watch Cartoon Network and Sci-Fi when I'm in a hotel room: I'd think those would be natural ad venues. Not a kobold or gnome do I find. (OK, you never see the gnomes coming...)

2. Non-sexist presentation of people.
D&D 4th edition (and third and 3.5) use "he" and "she" to refer to characters alternately and have both male and female example characters. Is this no longer stylistically correct?
Me, I prefer "characters" and "they": my 11th grade English teacher would be outraged at my number confusion, but "he/she" is discordant and the general "he" has been shouted down.
Yes, I recognize D&D 1 and 2 used the general he: that was in accordance with general English usage at the time.

3. Non-sexist treatment of people.
We've already established the rules treat characters of different (or no) genders relatively equally. The drow are an exception, but they're a collection of murderous demon-worshippers: sexism is probably one of their better qualities.

Have I missed a "Beer and Wenches" D&D ad?
Cos otherwise, I'm not seeing any reason for you to be unhappy.


----------



## Bumbles

ajanders said:


> Shilsen:
> Is there any D&D advertising at all? I watch Cartoon Network and Sci-Fi when I'm in a hotel room: I'd think those would be natural ad venues. Not a kobold or gnome do I find. (OK, you never see the gnomes coming...)




Comic books maybe?  I could swear I saw some when 4E first came out.  

I can't recall seeing any since, but that might not mean much.  Of course, I can still recall the old advertisements for the 2E PHB and that Buck Rogers game.   Those still stick in my head.  And the one featuring the original cover of the Crystal Shard.


----------



## Mark

There was a television commercial a quarter century ago . . .

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dYtSNupzmk]D&D commercial on YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Aus_Snow

Jack7 said:


> I think I'd rather see a female severely injured in combat than good at math. The one I could live with, no problem, the other is just plain kinda scary.
> 
> Does that make me a bad person?



Of course it does. Deadpan irreverent humour is intolerable, or at least shouldn't be put up with in a _decent_ world.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Interesting discussion.

Something I've been thinking though, while there have been elements of discrimination (sexism) in D&D against women, it has been my experience that there far greater amounts of discrimination (especially in intensity) towards D&D by women.

I'm not saying it's two-way, nor that there is cause and effect (though maybe there is). But I've met for more women who have a visceral negative reaction against TRPGs than I have met male hobbyists who have even mildly sexist reactions.

It made me think that in this current rule set, which angle would be the easiest to work upon to bring more women to the hobby.


----------



## Piratecat

Aus_Snow said:


> Of course it does. Deadpan irreverent humour is intolerable, or at least shouldn't be put up with in a _decent_ world.



The essence of comedy is timing. As a moderator, one of my most hallowed responsibilities is letting people know when they've screwed that up.


----------



## Mark

Piratecat said:


> The essence of comedy is timing. As a moderator, one of my most hallowed responsibilities is letting people know when they've screwed that up.





Who are you and what have you done with Shecky Katze?


----------



## Aus_Snow

Sorry mate, I was out of line there. It's a topic I feel strongly about, and in all honesty, I should _do_ know better than to go shooting my mouth off about it. _Again_. Well, here anyway.

Now I actually _will_ shut up (about this  ), and leave you to your unenviable task.

edit --- . . . except to say that I just now read Jack's followup thread (er, post), and well, I have certainly misread him in this case. Well, kinda _half_-misread, so to speak. Gah, this is not a good day for such things, it seems. :/


----------



## billd91

Doug McCrae said:


> On the issue of sexist art:
> 
> For men, appearance is a much more important factor in sexual attraction than it is for women. Sure women like to look at George Clooney but the actor's appeal with the opposite sex is, imo, based on a wider variety of traits than looks alone.
> 
> So visual art is inherently sexist. By choosing to create a picture one has chosen a medium which appeals more to male sexual desire than to female.




While there may be real studies suggesting that physical beauty (particularly related to fertility cues) may be a larger proportion of male attraction than female attraction, it doesn't follow that visual art is inherently sexist. Sexism will come from choosing to appeal to the viewer's sexual desires. Using sex to sell the product. And that does not define visual art as a whole.


----------



## Bumbles

BTW, I just did a quick scan of the art in the core books for 1e and 4e.

In 1E, I noticed 2 pictures of females in the PHB (one a female elf with the race pictures, the other a caster type at the end), maybe 8 or so in the DMG (I'm not sure whether or not to count the images at the bottom of the RDG page as one or many), and the MM had like 2 females that weren't on pages of monsters that were explicitly female.

In comparison, the 4E books had males and females for each of the races in the PHB, and females throughout the rest of the book, same for the DMG.  For the MM, many of the monster pictures had male and female examples, including the player-character races, but some others like Goblins and Bugbears as well.

Note, I'm not bothering to compare the quality/style/amount of the art, just doing a quick look through the books for some perspective.  And I really don't want to go through all the editions, but if somebody else does, hey, more power to you!


----------



## Hairfoot

I've opened similar threads on previous incarnations of ENworld, but I've mellowed since.

Fantasy worlds are usually sexist, but rarely downright misogynistic.  I've also found that women (IME) aren't very outraged by it, and clearly see it as a target market measure and not a prejudice problem.  If you look at the way women are regarded in most other male-dominated pursuits, the charge of gamer sexism looks weak indeed.

I will, however, never regard chainmail bikinis as legitimate, simply because they're absurd as fighting garb.


----------



## Aus_Snow

On a topic I find less bothersome (i.e., sexism - or rather, _relative_ sexism - in gaming), I'd say that even among RPGs, which are by and large hardly the worst offenders out there, 3e and - to the best of my knowledge - 4e are remarkably un-sexist. Seriously.

Switching gender pronouns all over the place. Frequent and strong representation of women in adventuring and yes, even fighting roles. In both text and imagery, that is.

Sexism in [21C] *D&D*? *Really*? And *EN WORLD*, of all places? I am not kidding in any way, shape or form here, just for the record. I'm just struggling not to collapse in a fit of giggles at the very idea.

As for the 'evidence' given in the OP, in the vast majority it was people (including at least one moderator) takin' the proverbial pee, or just being harmlessly jocular. Otherwise, (_maybe_) one or two poor ignorant sods who truly probably don't know better. . . yet. Who knows, in a few years, growing up might sneak up on them. *shrug* Anyway, the targets here seem. . . odd choices indeed.


----------



## TeutonicBerserker

~ This post was WAY over the line, hence I'm removing it. I understand that these are some issues you feel strongly about, but this isn't the right place to talk about them. Plane Sailing ~


----------



## roguerouge

TeutonicBerserker said:


> I would wager that few people reading this, whatever their race or gender, have actually been oppressed (beyond the standard economic exploitation and political despotism that characterizes the US).




"Standard economic exploitation and political despotism," in YOUR words, do not equal oppression? That's some stringent standards you've got there, fella. 




TeutonicBerserker said:


> Why do ideologically motivated individuals, invariably from the left (culturally speaking), feel compelled to bemoan the fact that other people don't see things the way they do?




You're new to posting to the forum, so you may not be aware that you're moving REALLY close to the line with this part of your post, especially combined with use of RW political hot buttons like Affirmative Action. To give you some sense of this, I had to really, really make the effort to be polite to you about a post that comes off as baiting at times. 

I really wanted to bring up the usual arguments about US history that working class liberals like myself usually bring up, but... I'm going to try to assume that you didn't mean this post to come off the way it read.


----------



## Lwaxy

Doug McCrae said:


> I disagree. I don't think roleplaying games in their current form (and I refer to content not presentation) can ever appeal to women anything like as strongly as they appeal to men. They are way too combat heavy, way too system heavy and way too number heavy.
> 
> I'm not saying girls can't do math, or that female geeks don't exist or that women can't be interested in some number-oriented activity like Bingo or Bridge. But in ttrpgs numbers fly around like clouds of bats, many of them serving no purpose whatsoever. You have to f---ing love them to play in a way few women do.
> 
> Rpgs that do appeal to women more are mmorpgs and Murder Mystery.





Excuse me? 

OK, I', mathematically challenged (dyscalculia) and numbers do scare me on my bad days. However, the numbers in rpgs are all so basic even i get it - although I might have to look up tables to know what does what damage. 

And I have yet to see someone who "loves" the numbers in rpgs. They are there for a reason, but if there was a way to get rid of them, I bet many males would love that, too. 

I've met a bunch of males who were turned off by all the numbers, I don't think it has anything to do with what women prefer.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Lwaxy said:


> And I have yet to see someone who "loves" the numbers in rpgs. They are there for a reason, but if there was a way to get rid of them, I bet many males would love that, too.




*raises hand*

I don't advocate diceless RP, since I enjoy the random aspects. But if there were an easy way to _never_ utter a number aloud, and instead somehow convey the numbers instantly and _only_ ever describe the effects via the narrative, I'd be all over it.


----------



## Lwaxy

shilsen said:


> Interesting. Do you eliminate sexism in SciFi settings?




For the most part. Although we had a setting once where women were the ones sexist towards men, based on the assumption that it was males who destroyed earth and caused the human race to have to leave home. Ironically, it so happened that it had been a women ultimately responsible for the final straw.




> Actually, that sounds like at least 50% of the female gamers I've met




 No wonder.


----------



## Lwaxy

Piratecat said:


> The essence of comedy is timing.




I had no issue with the timing and am rather confused now.


----------



## Starfox

We have a VERY sexist thread going on here at EN World at the moment: Witch Girls Adventures.

This is a game where all the characters are supposed to be of a single gender, the story is targeted at issues perceived to be interesting to that gender, and characters and stereotypes of the other gender are actively discouraged.

This is not a bad thing. Girls gave a right to their own games. But maybe boys do too? Maybe its ok to have games that pander more to one gender than to the other? Where you get to play around with stereotypes without getting bashed for it? Or is the political climate today such that only girls can do this? Isn't that even more sexist?

Of course, there is a difference between sexism-as-a-genre of witch girl adventures and the sexism-as-an-institution this threat attacks. I'm not blind to the fact that most sexism is still directed towards women. And games like fatal are not just sexist - they showcase a lifestyle of disregard for sentient life that goes way beyond simple sexism. Still, I wanted to make the point, show that sexism is a wider issue than people might think and that it swings both ways. Attacks on perceived sexism can actually be sexist themselves.

As an illustration from real life: In the Swedish schooling system today, girls do better than boys. Not just a little better, but a lot. Most of our university students are now women. There have been many school reforms in Sweden aimed at promoting "softer" values in school - to the point where I now actually consider our school system sexist towards boys.


----------



## resistor

Lwaxy said:


> Excuse me?
> 
> ...
> 
> I've met a bunch of males who were turned off by all the numbers, I don't think it has anything to do with what women prefer.




OK, I'm not picking on you in particular (several other posters have said the same thing), but this touches on a peeve of mine that I wanted to bring up, which is that I find this type of response somewhat hypocritical.

The ENTIRE BASIS of this kind of discussion is that product/activity X is marketed to/designed for the tastes of men, to the exclusion of women.  This implicitly assumes that the tastes of men is something that can be quantified and marketed to/designed for, and what people ascribe them to be is always the stereotypical things: fast cars, violence, explosions, nude women with big breasts and no waist, etc.

But as soon as someone suggests designing for/marketing to women, the "We're all special snowflakes!" argument comes out.

Yeah, well, me too.  I mean, I don't give a **** about cars, get nauseated by excessively violent media, and don't find the big breasts/no waist combo especially attractive (OK, I'll admit, explosions are kind of cool  ).  And yet nobody has a problem taking for granted that these stereotypes define what men like and/or how to market to/design for them.

It's fine (in fact, probably a good thing) if we want to go this route, but that means you can't talk about male stereotypes either, which undermines one of the core assumptions of this discussion.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Unfortunately that is how discourse works on these sensitive topics. You can malign the majority, but need to pussyfoot around minorities. I know that history is against minorities, but it sure makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion. 

My feeling for 4E is thatis is remarkably non-sexist, and indeed the points-of-light makes it even mroe so as there are no 'medieval' mindsets going on there. Good for WOTC

However, to try and ignore the fact that we have two different sexes in this world (or more, if you go for subtle variations) and treat all people as one same thing is a disservice. I find reading about how men and women handle things fascinating, from child-rearing, to logic/problem solving, interpersonal relationships, and stranger things.


----------



## Lwaxy

Starfox said:


> I don't know if its been mentioned here - too many pages of text for one read - but we have a VERY sexist thread going on here at EN World at the moment: Witch Girls Adventures.
> 
> This is a game where all the characters are supposed to be of a single gender, the story is targeted at issues perceived to be interesting to that gender, and characters and stereotypes of the other gender are actively discouraged.




Yes, it is a sexist game, one that should have never been published IMO. This whole girly witch stuff is not something I'd like to introduce my daughters to - if i had any. It would be somewhat ok if there was at least some useful option for a male character but this way I think it is condescending in both ways.


----------



## NewJeffCT

Lanefan said:


> Stupid question: the character she's bringing in to the game *is* female, right?
> 
> Player gender and character gender don't always follow suit.
> 
> Lan-"I'm male; the ratio of PCs I'm currently playing is female 2, male 0"-efan




Yes, she is playing a female character.


----------



## Lwaxy

resistor said:


> OK, I'm not picking on you in particular (several other posters have said the same thing), but this touches on a peeve of mine that I wanted to bring up, which is that I find this type of response somewhat hypocritical.
> 
> The ENTIRE BASIS of this kind of discussion is that product/activity X is marketed to/designed for the tastes of men, to the exclusion of women.  This implicitly assumes that the tastes of men is something that can be quantified and marketed to/designed for, and what people ascribe them to be is always the stereotypical things: fast cars, violence, explosions, nude women with big breasts and no waist, etc.
> 
> But as soon as someone suggests designing for/marketing to women, the "We're all special snowflakes!" argument comes out.
> 
> Yeah, well, me too.  I mean, I don't give a **** about cars, get nauseated by excessively violent media, and don't find the big breasts/no waist combo especially attractive (OK, I'll admit, explosions are kind of cool  ).  And yet nobody has a problem taking for granted that these stereotypes define what men like and/or how to market to/design for them.
> 
> It's fine (in fact, probably a good thing) if we want to go this route, but that means you can't talk about male stereotypes either, which undermines one of the core assumptions of this discussion.




Good point. 

Personally, asides from the weird art of female fantasy figures, which as someone has pointed out is done by male and female artists alike, I haven't seen much of either gender based stereotypes in RPGs other than we create ourselves. I think I mentioned that before  Yet I don't mind talking about stereotypes, I'm just somewhat opposed to assumptions as the one I responded to. Of course now I realize that the poster I responded to might have had different experiences.

However, if I was to stereotype males in the same way, I'd probably claim that you cannot have an rpg setting without half naked barmaids, heroines (or fast, big vehicles in a modern setting). I haven't seen a male player wanting any of this in our campaigns either so I consider it not very likely many gamers like that exist.


----------



## Hairfoot

Does the leathered, buckled, dungeonpunk male beefcake style of 3E/4E art appeal to women?


----------



## shilsen

Nifft said:


> IMHO, and with apologies for abusing some other dude's terminology, the emergence of sexism in RPGs is a function of two things: *Simulationism* and [/b]Narration[/b]. That it has been largely removed from many of the most popular RPGs is a function of the triumph of *Gamism*.




Interesting point. I hadn't considered phrasing the issue using those terms, since I tend not to use them much.



> Basically, simulationism demands that the difference between girls and boys be quantified.




Depending on what you're interested in simulating, of course. 



> Narration demands that certain roles be filled -- and the maiden in distress role may be just as important as the knight in armor role, but one's just a bit more fun to enact.




Again, I think that depends on what you're choosing to narrate and how. My games regularly feature people in distress and people in armor, but neither of those roles map onto gender.



ajanders said:


> Shilsen:
> To address some of your points.
> 
> 1. Non-sexist advertising.
> Frankly, the first thing that comes to mind is that there should be some advertising. Anywhere.
> 
> ...
> 
> 2. Non-sexist presentation of people.
> 
> ...
> 
> 3. Non-sexist treatment of people.
> 
> Have I missed a "Beer and Wenches" D&D ad?
> Cos otherwise, I'm not seeing any reason for you to be unhappy.




I should clarify that (as I think I mentioned earlier) I'm not really unhappy with D&D's current status and I do think that 3e and 4e are much more egalitarian in their treatment of the sexes than any earlier edition. I'm just pointing out that they could do better.

As for advertising, I didn't refer to it in the original post (I think) and if I did later then I was in error. I've been referring to the presentation of the game, by which I mean things like the artwork, the miniatures, the modules, etc. I think these are the areas which tend to be much more gender-skewed, even if the core rules and mechanics are completely egalitarian. For example, modules and campaign setting pantheons tend to be heavily skewed towards males (which, in contrast, the PHB pantheon isn't). Small things, which most people don't notice or care about, of course.



Eric Anondson said:


> Interesting discussion.
> 
> Something I've been thinking though, while there have been elements of discrimination (sexism) in D&D against women, it has been my experience that there far greater amounts of discrimination (especially in intensity) towards D&D by women.
> 
> I'm not saying it's two-way, nor that there is cause and effect (though maybe there is). But I've met for more women who have a visceral negative reaction against TRPGs than I have met male hobbyists who have even mildly sexist reactions.




That's a damn good point. I think a big part of the reason for that is the social idea of D&D as a retreat for socially inept men. That's something else which I'm interested in seeing the hobby overcome, and I think in some ways it's doing better in that area than it has before, just like with the sexism. And similarly, as with the sexism, there's still space for improvement.



> It made me think that in this current rule set, which angle would be the easiest to work upon to bring more women to the hobby.




Tough question. I think there have been some decent answers in this thread, and it's probably a combination of many things.



Bumbles said:


> BTW, I just did a quick scan of the art in the core books for 1e and 4e.
> 
> In 1E, I noticed 2 pictures of females in the PHB (one a female elf with the race pictures, the other a caster type at the end), maybe 8 or so in the DMG (I'm not sure whether or not to count the images at the bottom of the RDG page as one or many), and the MM had like 2 females that weren't on pages of monsters that were explicitly female.
> 
> In comparison, the 4E books had males and females for each of the races in the PHB, and females throughout the rest of the book, same for the DMG.  For the MM, many of the monster pictures had male and female examples, including the player-character races, but some others like Goblins and Bugbears as well.
> 
> Note, I'm not bothering to compare the quality/style/amount of the art, just doing a quick look through the books for some perspective.  And I really don't want to go through all the editions, but if somebody else does, hey, more power to you!




Thanks for that. I never actually played 1e, but I'm not at all surprise by what you noted. Some of my comments in the original post and later in this thread are inflected by my opinion about the nature of the art rather than just the quantity (it's still way more common to sexualize females in 4e art than men, for example), but just having more equal representation is a step forward.



Hairfoot said:


> I've opened similar threads on previous incarnations of ENworld, but I've mellowed since.
> 
> Fantasy worlds are usually sexist, but rarely downright misogynistic.




Probably true, but I tend to have issues with the former too, and think it's often just a milder/subtler form of the latter. Obviously many will (and, as this thread indicates, do) differ.



> I will, however, never regard chainmail bikinis as legitimate, simply because they're absurd as fighting garb.




Agreed  Though that charge can be leveled at a lot of other armor in the books too, which seem specifically designed to show off some fairly vulnerable parts of the human (almost invariably female) body.



Aus_Snow said:


> As for the 'evidence' given in the OP, in the vast majority it was people (including at least one moderator) takin' the proverbial pee, or just being harmlessly jocular. Otherwise, (_maybe_) one or two poor ignorant sods who truly probably don't know better. . . yet. Who knows, in a few years, growing up might sneak up on them. *shrug* Anyway, the targets here seem. . . odd choices indeed.




I think I'm referencing a much subtler form of sexism in my original post and elsewhere in this thread than what you're referring to, the (to borrow a phrase used by Jeff Wilder earlier) so-subtle-we're-not-even-aware-we're-sexist variety. Which, admittedly, is something possessed by lots of people in the real world, which is why I tend to note it here too. Many, of course, don't and/or simply disagree.



Mouseferatu said:


> *raises hand*
> 
> I don't advocate diceless RP, since I enjoy the random aspects. But if there were an easy way to _never_ utter a number aloud, and instead somehow convey the numbers instantly and _only_ ever describe the effects via the narrative, I'd be all over it.




Wait - so you're _not_ actually working on this new system yet, Ari?


----------



## NewJeffCT

shilsen said:


> That's a damn good point. I think a big part of the reason for that is the social idea of D&D as a retreat for socially inept men. That's something else which I'm interested in seeing the hobby overcome, and I think in some ways it's doing better in that area than it has before, just like with the sexism. And similarly, as with the sexism, there's still space for improvement.
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. I never actually played 1e, but I'm not at all surprise by what you noted. Some of my comments in the original post and later in this thread are inflected by my opinion about the nature of the art rather than just the quantity (it's still way more common to sexualize females in 4e art than men, for example), but just having more equal representation is a step forward.




A few years back, the WotC boards had a thread on attracting more women into the hobby... as a follow-up, I had posted a thread on a non-gaming forum that I frequent about the impression women had of people who play D&D:

I got a wide variety of responses - some who still remembered the 1E artwork as being sexist, while others who were pretty open-minded about the game. But, there is still the impression that it's sort of a "Boy's Club"


----------



## Starfox

resistor said:


> The ENTIRE BASIS of this kind of discussion is that product/activity X is marketed to/designed for the tastes of men, to the exclusion of women.  This implicitly assumes that the tastes of men is something that can be quantified and marketed to/designed for, and what people ascribe them to be is always the stereotypical things: fast cars, violence, explosions, nude women with big breasts and no waist, etc.




One of the bad things about traditional sexism is that it strikes both ways; not only does it punish women for not confirming to male values; it punishes males who do not confirm to male values either, and much harsher.


----------



## shilsen

Lwaxy said:


> For the most part. Although we had a setting once where women were the ones sexist towards men, based on the assumption that it was males who destroyed earth and caused the human race to have to leave home. Ironically, it so happened that it had been a women ultimately responsible for the final straw.




Nice. If I'm going to see sexism, then I'm all for equal opportunity sexism. 

That's one of the weird things I've noticed with the campaign settings out there. They either shoot for some type of egalitarianism (and usually miss, other than Eberron) or have males as the gender in power. I never see women as consistently in power in a setting, and sadly the only real matriarchy which comes to mind in D&D is the drow, and that's got all sorts of weird sexist (and I'd argue downright misogynist) crap going on.  



> Actually, that sounds like at least 50% of the female gamers I've met






> No wonder.




I know  I've had a couple of female gamers tell me that when they got into gaming they felt they needed to emphasize such qualities to be accepted as one of the boys. And then I had my all-girl group which regularly embarrassed the hell out of any male added to the group by their crudity 



Starfox said:


> We have a VERY sexist thread going on here at EN World at the moment: Witch Girls Adventures.
> 
> This is a game where all the characters are supposed to be of a single gender, the story is targeted at issues perceived to be interesting to that gender, and characters and stereotypes of the other gender are actively discouraged.




I've been watching - and posting in - that thread, and while I've seen some comments by the publisher there about how they're planning to cater to male players too, I agree that it's primarily, and almost exclusively, catering to female players.



> This is not a bad thing. Girls gave a right to their own games. But maybe boys do too? Maybe its ok to have games that pander more to one gender than to the other? Where you get to play around with stereotypes without getting bashed for it? Or is the political climate today such that only girls can do this? Isn't that even more sexist?
> 
> Of course, there is a difference between sexism-as-a-genre of witch girl adventures and the sexism-as-an-institution this threat attacks. I'm not blind to the fact that most sexism is still directed towards women. And games like fatal are not just sexist - they showcase a lifestyle of disregard for sentient life that goes way beyond simple sexism. Still, I wanted to make the point, show that sexism is a wider issue than people might think and that it swings both ways. Attacks on perceived sexism can actually be sexist themselves.




Agreed. But I would suggest that sometimes when dealing with sexism (and many other -isms) where one group is presented as the default or norm, one has to do so by catering to the underrepresented group(s) in a way that might seem sexist in itself. Emphasis on seem. If gaming and RPGs were generally marketed equally towards men and women, I'd say that a game like Witch Girl Adventures is very sexist. But since gaming and RPGs are, in my estimation, marketed disproportionately towards men already, I'd say something like Witch Girl is only redressing the balance.

That said, I do have some issues with that kind of an approach, even though I can see why one would go that route and think that it (possibly) might bring a lot more people into gaming.



resistor said:


> OK, I'm not picking on you in particular (several other posters have said the same thing), but this touches on a peeve of mine that I wanted to bring up, which is that I find this type of response somewhat hypocritical.
> 
> The ENTIRE BASIS of this kind of discussion is that product/activity X is marketed to/designed for the tastes of men, to the exclusion of women.  This implicitly assumes that the tastes of men is something that can be quantified and marketed to/designed for, and what people ascribe them to be is always the stereotypical things: fast cars, violence, explosions, nude women with big breasts and no waist, etc.
> 
> But as soon as someone suggests designing for/marketing to women, the "We're all special snowflakes!" argument comes out.
> 
> Yeah, well, me too.  I mean, I don't give a **** about cars, get nauseated by excessively violent media, and don't find the big breasts/no waist combo especially attractive (OK, I'll admit, explosions are kind of cool  ).  And yet nobody has a problem taking for granted that these stereotypes define what men like and/or how to market to/design for them.
> 
> It's fine (in fact, probably a good thing) if we want to go this route, but that means you can't talk about male stereotypes either, which undermines one of the core assumptions of this discussion.




Actually I think one should definitely talk about male stereotypes where these conversations are concerned, and I doubt I'm the only one. A lot of the things you mentioned are issues I was thinking of when making my original post. But if I wanted to cover each and every one of these avenues, I'd have to write a manifesto, which nobody would read and we wouldn't have this conversation. Whereas with a shorter post (albeit one which leaves out or barely touches on certain important issues) we can have a conversation like this one, which can then develop and touch on other issues, as I think it already has. 



Dice4Hire said:


> Unfortunately that is how discourse works on these sensitive topics. You can malign the majority, but need to pussyfoot around minorities. I know that history is against minorities, but it sure makes it hard to have a reasonable discussion.




I run into that issue a lot, but I think it's possible to both be polite and respectful (to both majorities and minorities) and have intelligent discourse. Sure, it's complicated and it's difficult, but I don't think that makes it worthless or impossible. 



> However, to try and ignore the fact that we have two different sexes in this world (or more, if you go for subtle variations) and treat all people as one same thing is a disservice. I find reading about how men and women handle things fascinating, from child-rearing, to logic/problem solving, interpersonal relationships, and stranger things.




I'm one of those people who believes that there's far too much variation between the individuals within each sex to generalize about any sex, esp. since what any sex is conceived of as changes drastically based on their positioning, whether cultural, historical, geographical, etc. Hell, the actual number of sexes or what they are changes depending on what part of the world you're in. I'd rather just deal with people as individuals. Which may make my original post a little ironic, except that I'm arguing that D&D subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, is exclusionary towards certain individuals by placing them in particular groups. 



Lwaxy said:


> Yes, it is a sexist game, one that should have never been published IMO. This whole girly witch stuff is not something I'd like to introduce my daughters to - if i had any. It would be somewhat ok if there was at least some useful option for a male character but this way I think it is condescending in both ways.




I can see why you'd say that, and I doubt any of the women I've ever gamed with would want to play it, but I think one reason why a game like that is produced is the nature of gaming and the gaming population right now. If gaming is something which was equally welcoming to everyone, irrespective of gender, I don't think a game like Witch Girl would be able to (or have to) show up.



Lwaxy said:


> Yet I don't mind talking about stereotypes, I'm just somewhat opposed to assumptions as the one I responded to. Of course now I realize that the poster I responded to might have had different experiences.




One of the interesting things about such discussions for me is what it displays of the varied assumptions each of us brings with us to the gaming table. If it seems like I'm bashing D&D in this thread, I'm really not, since I think it's fascinating that it's a forum where people with such diverse tastes and opinions can meet to do creative, smart, fun things together. The same goes for ENWorld, which is one of the reasons I hang out here so much.



Hairfoot said:


> Does the leathered, buckled, dungeonpunk male beefcake style of 3E/4E art appeal to women?




Search me. In general, I've heard very few women or men who say that it appeals to them. Or maybe I'm just thinking of Hennet


----------



## roguerouge

Starfox said:


> We have a VERY sexist thread going on here at EN World at the moment: Witch Girls Adventures.
> 
> This is a game where all the characters are supposed to be of a single gender, the story is targeted at issues perceived to be interesting to that gender, and characters and stereotypes of the other gender are actively discouraged.




So? You're going to need more evidence than that to claim that the thread is sexist, let alone that it's VERY sexist. And, if that is your evidence, is Smith College sexist to you? Is the very notion of any special-gender time or activity sexist to you? 

Edit: And, since straight and gay men pretend to be women all the time in real life, cosplay, cross-dressing pageants and in MMORPGs, I'm going to need more evidence that men cannot play this game. I'll agree that it drives off insecure men, but beyond that...



			
				Lwaxy said:
			
		

> This whole girly witch stuff is not something I'd like to introduce my daughters to - if i had any.




Is it the girly part or the witchy part? 

If your daughter wanted to be femme, would you actively try to thwart her desire to express herself? Or if she was merely curious about what being femme was like, and wanted to try it out in her imagination through this game?  

If it's because the girly and the witchy parts are combined, well, then what do you want for representation of witches: back to green hags only? 

I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you're reacting this way, because you've not presented any evidence for your position beyond the fact that it's girly.


----------



## Nikosandros

Nifft said:


> I think there's sexism because girls have an Int penalty.




Powers and Perils, the old RPG from Avalon Hill, actually has a int penalty for females...

Well, to be technically precise it grants human males a bonus to int, but it is functionally the same.


----------



## Tuft

Starfox said:


> One of the bad things about traditional sexism is that it strikes both ways; not only does it punish women for not confirming to male values; it punishes males who do not confirm to male values either, and much harsher.




Yes. In how many cultures and subcultures isn't saying that someone is acting like the other gender one of the worst _insults_ you can make? Especially that someone male is acting like a female.

Insults and curses got to be one of the most telling and exposing ways in which a culture shows its true values...


----------



## Tuft

roguerouge said:


> So? You're going to need more evidence than that to claim that the thread is sexist, let alone that it's VERY sexist. And, if that is your evidence, is Smith College sexist to you? Is the very notion of any special-gender time or activity sexist to you?




I think the point here is that if a boys-only club is sexist, then a girls-only one ought to be sexist too.

If marketing something to a male audience using imagery that attracts males is sexist, marketing something... well, fill in the rest.


----------



## WayneLigon

Proserpine said:


> Part of the point is that there's no inherent reason for D&D to cater mostly to its male audience. Well, minus the fact that it came out of war gaming, but that's not a valid excuse - D&D has evolved a lot since then, and is a much different game now.




Given the demographics for GenCon, mmm, maybe not. It was 81% male in 2008. While things have gotten better over time (I'd be guessing it was closer to 95% in earlier years*), I'd say the smart money would be on all of the major cons containing substantially more males than females. I'd say that gives us about a good a cross section of fans as we're likely to get without PHBs that read DNA and contact a server everytime they're touched.

* Oh, a thought. It might not have gotten better. The average age of gamers has kind of shifted upwards, making it more likely that SO's and wives will attend and we can't guarentee those were gamers as well though it would see safe to assume that more were than were not - those we still need a demographic that covers the people actually there for the gaming.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

I'm a bit late to this thread, but it's been a fascinating read.

My own experiences with sexism in games are varied, but I can point out a couple of things in my own experience. I was playing in a 3e game, and a female member of the group was told, to her face, that her female character would find it harder to get recognition for her deeds in the game-world, purely because she was female. When challenged on this by several members of the group, the DM reiterated that he felt this accurately reflected the real-world, and in particular the historical area he wanted to portray, and that it shouldn't be a problem. When challenged again that this was a game, and that it was unfair to apply a real-world piece of politics to characters in this game, he refused to discuss it. The female gamer in question left the group not long after.

More broadly, I can certainly appreciate that as a hobby gaming (and in particular, D&D) is male-centered. The game that I run is certainly combat-heavy, light on role-playing (at least, in terms of deep immersion, character driven plots) and fairly loud and boisterous. Whether that would be off-putting to a female player, I'm not sure. Should I be approached by one (and I would need to be approached because I'm not looking for any more players right now) then I'd be clear about it, and if they weren't interested I'd ask what sort of game they did like and see if I could help them find a group that was more suitable to their tastes. But then, frankly, if I was approached by a male gamer with the same problem I'd offer the same solution.

I would also like to re-emphasise something that some other people have mentioned, and it is this:

_If you cannot see or understand that there is a problem with sexism in RPG's, in terms of the marketing, the assumptions, the behaviour of gamers (both in games and at conventions), then you are part of the problem._

In addition to that, I would like to state this:

_If you are male, then it is not possible for you to make a valid judgement on whether or not there is or is not a problem with sexism in gaming. You cannot experience the same sort of discrimination as women, as you are not one._

I appreciate that the second statement there is going to provoke some comments. I'm happy to discuss this view.

I do also find it slightly hilarious that in a hobby which is dominated by men, has products that are nearly entirely aimed at, written by and marketed to men, finally gets around to writing a game aimed at and marketed to women, that the response isn't "Oh, about time" but "This is sexist! It excludes men! I am excluded! I feel oppressed!"


----------



## Aus_Snow

Mathew_Freeman said:


> _If you cannot see or understand that there is a problem with sexism in RPG's, in terms of the marketing, the assumptions, the behaviour of gamers (both in games and at conventions), then you are part of the problem._



Let's see now. . .



> _If you are male, then it is not possible for you to make a valid judgement on whether or not there is or is not a problem with sexism in gaming. You cannot experience the same sort of discrimination as women, as you are not one._



Oh, and it gets better.

Are you male?

If so, you have just shot yourself in the foot with the other one in your mouth. 

Nice shootin'.


----------



## roguerouge

Mathew_Freeman said:


> In addition to that, I would like to state this: _If you are male, then it is not possible for you to make a valid judgement on whether or not there is or is not a problem with sexism in gaming. You cannot experience the same sort of discrimination as women, as you are not one._




Baloney. As someone who's been disabled and teaches disability studies, that's baloney. You may not know exactly what it feels like to be disenfranchised in that way, but I'd certainly never state that you can't know anything about disenfranchisement, ever. It takes some education, some imagination, and some empathy, but yes, you can have a valid opinion on something that you don't have direct experience with. 

In fact, I bet you have loads of valid opinions on topics with which you don't have direct experience. You do, after all, play a game of imagining things that never were. 

Basically, taken to its logical extreme, your stance is that people can't extrapolate from their own experience to try to understand anyone else's experience. Abstract reasoning, imagination, metaphors, similes, theory... all subservient before the great god of Experience. 

In addition, I can hardly think of a less productive viewpoint to have when it comes to promoting progressive values. Basically, this statement says, "Shut up" to anyone you might try to work with in a coalition and to anyone you might try to persuade of your viewpoint. I can hardly imagine trying to teach my students disability with that attitude. I can easily imagine what the impact of doing so would be... even though I've never directly experienced teaching in that manner.

Essentially, you advocate for political solipsism: nobody's viewpoint but mine and those exactly like mine matter. If that's true, why are you in this thread, talking to people who don't have this experience of sexism? Whatever they might learn from you would be invalid, because they never directly experienced it.


----------



## roguerouge

Tuft said:


> I think the point here is that if a boys-only club is sexist, then a girls-only one ought to be sexist too.
> 
> If marketing something to a male audience using imagery that attracts males is sexist, marketing something... well, fill in the rest.




If that's the opinion, then drawing that equivalency is a fairly noble yet unrealistic way to understand real world power disparities and how to rectify them.


----------



## dbm

This sort of thing fascinates me, and I'll post at length when I have more time.  I just wanted to riposte this point:



Mathew_Freeman said:


> In addition to that, I would like to state this:
> 
> _If you are male, then it is not possible for you to make a valid judgement on whether or not there is or is not a problem with sexism in gaming. You cannot experience the same sort of discrimination as women, as you are not one._




If the players of a game whose fundamental point is to put yourself in someone else's shoes can't empathise with the other sex then go help us all!

Cheers,
Dan


----------



## Proserpine

Tuft said:


> I think the point here is that if a boys-only club is sexist, then a girls-only one ought to be sexist too.
> 
> If marketing something to a male audience using imagery that attracts males is sexist, marketing something... well, fill in the rest.




In my opinion, it's not really the same thing. As Shilsen pointed out earlier, males are treated as the default position in gaming. Even if D&D is mechanically egalitarian, it's gender skewed in other areas. And plenty of other RPGs are definitely catering more (or exclusively) to guys, creating implicit sexism left and right. 

My point is, these things aren't interchangeable, since one gender has historically been subordinated to the other in many areas, including gaming. Think of it this way (and I'm not trying to play oppression olympics, just trying to intellectualize the issue): you (hopefully) wouldn't call Black History Month racist, or Women's History Month sexist. Because... well, every other month is about the pursuits of white men. This is anecdotal, but: I've taken "progressive" humanities courses that decided to move away from the usual literature covered in humanities courses. Between nearly 17 texts, we read one female. I've also taken contemporary literature classes, and in one where I read 12 plays, we covered two females. And academia is not a boys' club anymore. Gender wise (and race wise, though we're not arguing that here) the world is quite unbalanced, and the male is seen in as the defaul even in areas (like academia) which are no longer boys' clubs.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Aus_Snow said:


> Let's see now. . .
> 
> Oh, and it gets better.
> 
> Are you male?
> 
> If so, you have just shot yourself in the foot with the other one in your mouth.
> 
> Nice shootin'.




How so?

Yes, I am male. The name was a clue. 

I appreciate that I cannot experience the sexism and discrimination in gaming, as a man, as a woman can. However, I can still see that there is discrimination and sexism, and in my own way I can try and work against that.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Mathew_Freeman said:


> How so?
> 
> Yes, I am male. The name was a clue.
> 
> I appreciate that I cannot experience the sexism and discrimination in gaming, as a man, as a woman can. However, I can still see that there is discrimination and sexism, and in my own way I can try and work against that.



If you insist. . .

'If you cannot see or understand that there is a problem with sexism in RPG's, in terms of the marketing, the assumptions, the behaviour of gamers (both in games and at conventions), then you are part of the problem.'​
So, here you are clearly stating that there is a problem with sexism in RPGs. Right? Right. Next one along then. . .

'If you are male, then it is not possible for you to make a valid judgement on whether or not there is or is not a problem with sexism in gaming. You cannot experience the same sort of discrimination as women, as you are not one.'​
And here you are clearly stating that, if one is male, one cannot 'make a valid judgement on whether or not there is [. . .] a problem with sexism in gaming.'

And, uh, _you are male_. See it now?


----------



## Doug McCrae

Mathew_Freeman said:


> I do also find it slightly hilarious that in a hobby which is dominated by men, has products that are nearly entirely aimed at, written by and marketed to men, finally gets around to writing a game aimed at and marketed to women, that the response isn't "Oh, about time" but "This is sexist! It excludes men! I am excluded! I feel oppressed!"



It is sexist, but in a good way. Any product must have a target market, that's just good business. But to identify such a market, whether it's geeks or sports fans or teenagers or men or women, is necessarily exclusionary.

There's really no reason why the response to Witch Girls from men in their 30s (the most common demographic on ENWorld) should be positive. Witch Girls isn't for men in their 30s, it's marketed towards younger females.

That Witch Girls exists is something I find really interesting. The creators are trying something new (which should always be applauded imo), going for more of a Harry Potter/manga market than Blue Rose which derived from modern romantic fantasy. Testing a roleplaying game with a girl scout group is kind of mind-blowing and potentially revolutionary. 

But Witch Girls is not for me. It's not aimed at me. It doesn't care about me, and rightly so. So there's no reason why I or others in my demographic should care about it.


----------



## 1Mac

This is a way more interesting, level-headed, and helpful thread than I imagined it would be. Kudos ENWorld! I have a lot of reactions, but I'll try to focus on things that have been less discussed.

1.) It's been touched on indirectly, but I thought I would clarify: When you ask "Is D&D sexist?", you are really asking several things. To focus on a few of them...

a.) Are the mechanics sexist? (I think everyone agrees that despite some aberrant counterexamples, this is not true)

b.) Are the setting assumptions sexist?

c.) Is hobby gaming culture at large sexist?

There are further ways to refine these points.

2.) Regarding point b, that depends on a few things. For starters, it is important to recognize that many game settings, published and homebrewed, purposefully invoke real-world myth and legend, either directly or via modern fantasy. And as it happens, myth and legend, from Homer to King Arthur to Miyamoto Musashi, is often about manly men hacking at foes and rescuing damsels.

So why rely on such a milieu, if it reinforces sexual stereotypes (both male and female)? Because they are classics, and have given enjoyment for millennia. I can understand tweaking such tropes to accommodate powerful female characters. But there comes a point where the imperative to overhaul time-tested legend because it affronts our modern sensitivities to gender inequality becomes silly.

3.) Is there anything wrong with a boy's club or a girl's club in gaming? I personally don't think there is. People often like being around people exclusively of their own sex from time to time, and I don't think this is immature or prejudicial, nor should it be discouraged.

I realize, though, that this is a different issue than whether an entire hobby should be the domain of one sex or another.

4.) A personal anecdote, one that I hope my wife won't find too embarrassing, since it's about her (though she was telling it in public to strangers the other day, so I think I'm fine).

Years ago, before we were married and I was visiting her school, we took a trip into town to see Kill Bill. My now-wife doesn't like film violence, but I and some of her friends were enthusiastic, so away we went.

Afterwards she was visibly upset, not angry, but literally speechless with shock. This was upsetting to me. I felt like I had pushed her into doing something that she not only didn't want to do, but was actually harmful to her. We had an awkward, silent busride back to campus, where I finally brought up my concern. She was a bit surprised, and told me that I didn't need to take responsibility, that it was her decision to go to the show, and that she could bear the consequences.

This was an important teaching moment for me, and I was reminded of it recently when talking about starting a gaming group. I have tentatively persuaded her to join, but at one point I was suggesting that she encourage one of her girl friends to join as well, being aware of the "boy's club" that gaming can be. In so many words, she said "I can take what you guys dish out."

This doesn't abrogate the need to discuss how to make gaming more palatable to women, but I don't think what limited sexist relics still exist in D&D are insurmountable roadblocks. Most women are of sterner stuff than that.


----------



## CardinalXimenes

I think it's worth drawing a distinction between gaming sexism as an instrumental problem and gaming sexism as a moral failing, because the answers are going to be different for each. It's perfectly possible to make a devil's bargain with your content, pushing the material that is most likely to get you the most players regardless of what that material is. To argue that sexist content turns off the female demographic is to retreat to a utilitarian argument that is vulnerable to market facts. I don't think a lot of people making this argument would be satisfied if the market proved that splatbooks full of naked barbarian chicks boosted player numbers by 100%.

I think an argument many would prefer to make is that participating in vicarious sexism is something that more people should be uncomfortable about roleplaying. In that sense, debating whether a given RPG is turning off female gamers is a different conversation entirely. The success or failure of sexist content to expand the hobby is in no way going to affect their satisfaction with a game that seems sexist. It's also a much more difficult argument to make, because you have to not only convince your interlocutors of the existence of sexist content, but also that they should feel bad about participating vicariously in it.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Starfox said:


> As an illustration from real life: In the Swedish schooling system today, girls do better than boys. Not just a little better, but a lot. Most of our university students are now women.



Those stats hold true in the States, too (insofar as you can call what we have an educational system at this point).  Boys are increasingly likely to go right into the workforce after high school, for some reason.  Strange sort of reversal there.  And girls get better grades overall almost straight through the system (with the usual noise around math and science depending on the school system and teachers).

And if you want to see institutional sexism in action.... look at American graduate school.

American women are significantly more likely than men to enter graduate school but FAR less likely to finish it.  And a disturbingly large percentage of those who do finish end up ditching that career entirely for something else.  The sciences in particular are bad that way, though men also drop out of the sciences after attaining advanced degrees at a shocking rate.  Just not as high as the rate at which women drop out.  So higher level science education, teaching, and research are actually badly broken for both sexes, just broken WAY worse for women.

So even in the most liberal parts of our culture, who are allegedly the watchdogs for this stuff.... sexism is practically grafted into the institutions.



NewJeffCT said:


> <<snip>>
> But, there is still the impression that it's sort of a "Boy's Club"



Well.... yeah.  Last three times my wife came to any sort of gaming/comic store with me she was, in order:
1) Leered at by a pair of guys who were literally giggling in the corner after we came in
2) An extremely awkward and very creepy attempt was made to hit on her
3) Her anatomy was scrutinized to the point where I literally had to put my hand in front of the guy's face to get his attention to tell him I no longer intended to buy the books in my hand

They sound like bad stereotypes, but these events all took place within the last 3 years.  A sizable and very visible minority of male gamers (and geeks of all stripes) continue to treat women as if they were some other species entirely.  Women are consistently either objectified to an extreme or put on a ridiculous pedestal.  I've even seen some guys do both at the same time with the same woman, which is some ju jitsu conceptualization.

In short.... I'm not convinced the games themselves contain sexist elements worth noting at this point.  The _culture_, however, is a disaster area much of the time.  The gaming culture and the culture in general (leastwise here in the States)


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

roguerouge said:


> Baloney. As someone who's been disabled and teaches disability studies, that's baloney. You may not know exactly what it feels like to be disenfranchised in that way, but I'd certainly never state that you can't know anything about disenfranchisement, ever. It takes some education, some imagination, and some empathy, but yes, you can have a valid opinion on something that you don't have direct experience with.
> 
> In fact, I bet you have loads of valid opinions on topics with which you don't have direct experience. You do, after all, play a game of imagining things that never were.
> 
> Basically, taken to its logical extreme, your stance is that people can't extrapolate from their own experience to try to understand anyone else's experience. Abstract reasoning, imagination, metaphors, similes, theory... all subservient before the great god of Experience.
> 
> In addition, I can hardly think of a less productive viewpoint to have when it comes to promoting progressive values. Basically, this statement says, "Shut up" to anyone you might try to work with in a coalition and to anyone you might try to persuade of your viewpoint. I can hardly imagine trying to teach my students disability with that attitude. I can easily imagine what the impact of doing so would be... even though I've never directly experienced teaching in that manner.
> 
> Essentially, you advocate for political solipsism: nobody's viewpoint but mine and those exactly like mine matter. If that's true, why are you in this thread, talking to people who don't have this experience of sexism? Whatever they might learn from you would be invalid, because they never directly experienced it.




I need to my hands up and confess to being tired and to making a mistake with my post, for which I apologise.

What I was saying is that you cannot experience the *same* sort of discrimination, not that you cannot understand it or view it at all. Reading back, I didn't make that clear.

The point I was making was aimed at those people who were claiming that there is no sexism in gaming, as they were unaware of any. I'm of the opinion that if you're not aware of it, you're part of the problem.

I think I'm going to go back and make that original post read more like how I meant it, and rather less like I'm a pompous jerk. 

roguerouge, you sound like you have a great job, and I've clearly riled you. I hope you can accept that it wasn't my intention, and that I've written unclearly.

thanks,

Matt.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Aus_Snow said:


> If you insist. . .
> 
> 'If you cannot see or understand that there is a problem with sexism in RPG's, in terms of the marketing, the assumptions, the behaviour of gamers (both in games and at conventions), then you are part of the problem.'​
> So, here you are clearly stating that there is a problem with sexism in RPGs. Right? Right. Next one along then. . .
> 
> 'If you are male, then it is not possible for you to make a valid judgement on whether or not there is or is not a problem with sexism in gaming. You cannot experience the same sort of discrimination as women, as you are not one.'​
> And here you are clearly stating that, if one is male, one cannot 'make a valid judgement on whether or not there is [. . .] a problem with sexism in gaming.'
> 
> And, uh, _you are male_. See it now?




My original post really isn't clear, and my follow up doesn't help. Sigh. I should have thought harder before posting in this thread.

To be much clearer on my own position - I think there is a problem with sexism in gaming, but I appreciate that I cannot have the same experience of sexism as a woman can, because I am a man.

Therefore, I think it's important that men take advice from women on how to solve the problem, rather than dictating to them how it should be done.

It's a mess, and a bog, and I'm going to bow out of this thread until I can think (and post) more clearly.


----------



## Aus_Snow

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Therefore, I think it's important that men take advice from women on how to solve the problem, rather than dictating to them how it should be done.



Indeed. 

FWIW, you seem a lot more reasonable than I'd first assumed. My bad. Well, I hope I didn't let that assumption show too much.  I totally get that it's a mistake, especially with internet communication being unclear at the best of times, even without hot topics jangling people's nerves every which way. 

And hey, I probably agree with what you _meant_ to say (again fwiw).


----------



## shilsen

Starfox said:


> One of the bad things about traditional sexism is that it strikes both ways; not only does it punish women for not confirming to male values; it punishes males who do not confirm to male values either, and much harsher.




I personally wouldn't say that the patriarchy (aka traditional sexism) is much harsher to males who fail to conform, because the harshness does vary drastically from case to case, but I agree totally that the patriarchy hurts men a great deal too.



Mathew_Freeman said:


> _If you are male, then it is not possible for you to make a valid judgement on whether or not there is or is not a problem with sexism in gaming. You cannot experience the same sort of discrimination as women, as you are not one._




While I agree with a lot of your other points, I was going to disagree with this assertion, but I see that roguerogue has already done so much more articulately than I could, and that you've modified/retracted the comment below. Drat - there goes my righteous indignation 



> I do also find it slightly hilarious that in a hobby which is dominated by men, has products that are nearly entirely aimed at, written by and marketed to men, finally gets around to writing a game aimed at and marketed to women, that the response isn't "Oh, about time" but "This is sexist! It excludes men! I am excluded! I feel oppressed!"




Yup. And that's a disjunction which I think a lot of people totally don't get or notice.



roguerouge said:


> Baloney. As someone who's been disabled and teaches disability studies, that's baloney. You may not know exactly what it feels like to be disenfranchised in that way, but I'd certainly never state that you can't know anything about disenfranchisement, ever. It takes some education, some imagination, and some empathy, but yes, you can have a valid opinion on something that you don't have direct experience with.




Agreed on all counts. Nicely put. 



dbm said:


> If the players of a game whose fundamental point is to put yourself in someone else's shoes can't empathise with the other sex then go help us all!




I agree, but the funny thing is that whenever there's a thread about roleplaying another gender and someone makes the point you do, a number of people post that it's harder for a man to play a woman or vice versa than to play an elf or a dwarf because they're fictional. I totally don't buy that viewpoint, in part due to the sort of idea expressed by roguerogue above. And partly since I think that there's enough divergence between two men or two women that playing the other is just as complicated as playing someone of the opposite gender.



Mathew_Freeman said:


> I appreciate that I cannot experience the sexism and discrimination in gaming, as a man, as a woman can. However, I can still see that there is discrimination and sexism, and in my own way I can try and work against that.




And that I'm completely on board with. Just because I'm not being discriminated against doesn't mean I shouldn't care. Nor does it mean I should use double negatives, of course 



Doug McCrae said:


> But Witch Girls is not for me. It's not aimed at me. It doesn't care about me, and rightly so. So there's no reason why I or others in my demographic should care about it.




I see your point, but would you say you never care about anything which isn't directly aimed at you? On that basis, would you argue that men should never care about sexism aimed at women?



1Mac said:


> This is a way more interesting, level-headed, and helpful thread than I imagined it would be. Kudos ENWorld!




I was hoping it would work out this way, mainly because I have a lot of confidence in most of the posters and in the moderators at ENWorld. That said, I'm quite gratified that we're still having this conversation here and in the tone in which it's being carried on.



> Regarding point b, that depends on a few things. For starters, it is important to recognize that many game settings, published and homebrewed, purposefully invoke real-world myth and legend, either directly or via modern fantasy. And as it happens, myth and legend, from Homer to King Arthur to Miyamoto Musashi, is often about manly men hacking at foes and rescuing damsels.
> 
> So why rely on such a milieu, if it reinforces sexual stereotypes (both male and female)? Because they are classics, and have given enjoyment for millennia. I can understand tweaking such tropes to accommodate powerful female characters. But there comes a point where the imperative to overhaul time-tested legend because it affronts our modern sensitivities to gender inequality becomes silly.




I would disagree here, but I think that's evident already. Firstly, I don't think sexism is as necessary to most, if not all, of these real-world myths and legends as people often claim. The fact that they were sexist doesn't mean that there's any logical necessity for them to be so. When Edmund Spenser writes _The Faerie Queene_, he creates the female knight Britomart and she works. And I'm pretty darn sure I can create and run a game which has all the resonance of myth and legend without it being sexist. 

Secondly, and maybe this is a matter of personal taste (and I speak as someone who's been a mythologist since I started reading the kiddie version of the _Mahabharata_ at four), I would happily give up all use of myth and legend in my games rather than use that to justify sexism.



> This doesn't abrogate the need to discuss how to make gaming more palatable to women, but I don't think what limited sexist relics still exist in D&D are insurmountable roadblocks. Most women are of sterner stuff than that.




I don't think they are insurmountable roadblocks. If they were, I wouldn't have started this conversation. But I also don't think women should have to be "of sterner stuff" to play D&D. Or anyone, for that matter.



CardinalXimenes said:


> I think an argument many would prefer to make is that participating in vicarious sexism is something that more people should be uncomfortable about roleplaying. In that sense, debating whether a given RPG is turning off female gamers is a different conversation entirely. The success or failure of sexist content to expand the hobby is in no way going to affect their satisfaction with a game that seems sexist. It's also a much more difficult argument to make, because you have to not only convince your interlocutors of the existence of sexist content, but also that they should feel bad about participating vicariously in it.




Good points, but I think to some extent we're having both of those conversations in this thread. And while that may make some of this discussion a little schizoid, I think they're related enough that we can do so.



Canis said:


> And if you want to see institutional sexism in action.... look at American graduate school.




Speaking as someone in American graduate school, who also happens to teach undergraduates, let me just say - OMFG, yes!



> A sizable and very visible minority of male gamers (and geeks of all stripes) continue to treat women as if they were some other species entirely.  Women are consistently either objectified to an extreme or put on a ridiculous pedestal.  I've even seen some guys do both at the same time with the same woman, which is some ju jitsu conceptualization.






Sad but true. That's one of my major issues with the sort of seeming chivalry expressed by posters like Jack7. It presents itself as positive towards women, but what it really does is treat them as if they are aliens and also as if they are dependent upon male protection. It's a really backhanded form of sexism. Not new of course, since it's been around for much of history.


----------



## Proserpine

Mathew_Freeman said:


> My original post really isn't clear, and my follow up doesn't help. Sigh. I should have thought harder before posting in this thread.
> 
> To be much clearer on my own position - I think there is a problem with sexism in gaming, but I appreciate that I cannot have the same experience of sexism as a woman can, because I am a man.
> 
> Therefore, I think it's important that men take advice from women on how to solve the problem, rather than dictating to them how it should be done.
> 
> It's a mess, and a bog, and I'm going to bow out of this thread until I can think (and post) more clearly.




For what it's worth, I agree with what you're getting at entirely. I'm really interested in and aware of -isms, but empathy, understanding, and a willingness to acknowledge my own privilege (as a white, cisgender, kinda heterosexual, and able woman) is the extent to which I can and should explore the subject. That is to say, it's kind of rotten of me to say "oh geek stuff/geek culture isn't racist, heterocentric, or what have you" - because I'm not actively excluded in those ways. And being aware of my positioning definitely helps me too see that... well, those people definitely have merit to their arguments, which is really helpful. I certainly dislike a priviledged group telling a marginalized one that something doesn't exist, or that they should just deal with it... which is something that unfortunately happens a lot with gaming. (I'm thinking especially of online gaming. ENWorld and the people I've played with for ttrpgs are pleasantly intelligent - usually.)


----------



## S'mon

I think this thread is well into 'political' territory, but since the mods don't seem to mind, I have a query:

Isn't a game about killing things, taking their stuff, and getting more powerful (better at killing things) a game that caters to male power fantasies, and thus inherently sexist?  Some women enjoy those male power fantasies of killing and looting themselves, but most don't, and thus are inherently excluded.

And it seems to me that 4e D&D is if anything much more narrowly focused on the kill-loot fantasy than was 2e AD&D.  Thus even as the art is 'less sexist', the game itself is 'more sexist'.  People, especially female players & GMs, have always used D&D for different stories than the inherent power-fantasy one, but if anything that's harder now.

Or is that the 'anti sexists' want girls to be like boys - they want a game that encourages female players to enjoy the same kill-loot-power fantasy that most males like, without feeling excluded by sexist art or sexist game-world cultures?


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Proserpine said:


> ...one gender has historically been subordinated to the other in many areas, including gaming.




That's not true for gaming. People freely choosing to act according to their will does not subordinate anyone else. No D&D gamer's choice forces another player into a subordinate position. Put it this way: If one group chooses to call their gaming group the He-Man Woman-Haters D&D club, that doesn't subordinate women. It might be stupid, rude, irrepsonsible, and risible, but it's not subordinating anyone else. It's just their choice. People choosing what they want to do, of their own free will, doesn't force anyone else to do anything, or assume any particular position, be it subordinate, ordinate, or cardinal.


----------



## Taralan

Altought I can see the remaining subtle sexism in D&D (lets call it male-centrism) it seems to me that it is rather mild and certainly less so than many other hobbys including most of all professionnal sports and related entertainment. The new editions make it a point to promote strong female characters in all roles and class, really diminishing the feeling of exclusion.

It seems to me that D&D is far more subtly racist now than sexist. A sample of the art rarely depicts anything other than white characters except in very traditional depiction of semi-historical culture, such as the mwangi in pathfinder or the calimshan in FR for example... altough this too is getting better lately.

And of course, it is 20 times more heterocentric then male centric. I am unaware of any mention or depiction of homosexuality at all in the 40 years of existence of the game, be it in art, settings, adventure etc.... (except perhaps fringe products like the book of erotic fantasy).


----------



## 1Mac

> I don't think sexism is as necessary to most, if not all, of these real-world myths and legends as people often claim. The fact that they were sexist doesn't mean that there's any logical necessity for them to be so. When Edmund Spenser writes The Faerie Queene, he creates the female knight Britomart and she works. And I'm pretty darn sure I can create and run a game which has all the resonance of myth and legend without it being sexist.



I'm reminded of Brienne in A Song of Ice and Fire, who also works pretty darn well. There's a trick to this sort of thing, however, to play it so it doesn't seem like you are creating such characters specifically to counter perceived stereotypes. Otherwise the pandering inherent becomes more sexist than if you had just left it alone. Joss Whedon, who is of course my master, nevertheless frequently skirts this line, and it is only because he is such a good writer that he usually avoids crossing it. Stuff like the Charlie's Angels remake, or Kiera Knightly's Gweneviere in that King Arthur movie, Keira Knightly's character in Pirates of the Caribbean ("Try wearing a corsette!") cross it with reckless, hilarious aplomb. My point being that if you are trying to correct for sexism, rather than create interesting characters, you frequently fall on your face.

Also, in general, you could be forgiven for reading my OP and thinking that I thought the fantasy tropes I mentioned were in fact sexist, but I am not sure that is the case. That is, telling stories about beefy Herculeans hewing ogres and rescuing princesses is not in itself sexist. It is only in the context of a culture where those are the only stories being told, and where female passivity is the enforced cultural norm--as is the uber-action-male--are those stories problematic. But the story itself is neutral, and given that our cultural context is much different, I see nothing wrong in retelling such stories.

Also


> Secondly, and maybe this is a matter of personal taste (and I speak as someone who's been a mythologist since I started reading the kiddie version of the Mahabharata at four), I would happily give up all use of myth and legend in my games rather than use that to justify sexism.



I'm glad you concede that it could be a matter of personal taste, but I'll just clarify that this seems a minority position, depending on what you mean by justifying sexism. If you mean telling the sort of classic stories I outline, then that seems rather extreme. It certainly doesn't mean that anyone who tells such stories in their games is being sexist.


----------



## Bumbles

S'mon said:


> I think this thread is well into 'political' territory, but since the mods don't seem to mind, I have a query:




Your query has been addressed in the countless existing threads discussing the relative merits of 4th edition, and is really independent of any gender-bias that may exist in it.

If you think 4e is that way, and it bothers you, then start playing it another way is the only advice I can offer.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Doug McCrae said:


> There can't be any doubt about the gender of the wanton wench, aged madam and sly procuress.
> 
> <snip good points>
> Which seems to indicate they are all women.




"Pimp" and "streetwalker" are both gender-neutral, according to some definitions.

Basically, though, the chart reflects _Gary's_ perspective on the sexes of those who prostitute themselves, not the historical reality.



> And if you want to see institutional sexism in action.... look at American graduate school.
> 
> American women are significantly more likely than men to enter graduate school but FAR less likely to finish it. And a disturbingly large percentage of those who do finish end up ditching that career entirely for something else. The sciences in particular are bad that way, though men also drop out of the sciences after attaining advanced degrees at a shocking rate. Just not as high as the rate at which women drop out. So higher level science education, teaching, and research are actually badly broken for both sexes, just broken WAY worse for women.



and


> Speaking as someone in American graduate school, who also happens to teach undergraduates, let me just say - OMFG, yes!




Now_ that_ confuses me...I'm the grandson of 2 graduate profs, I've been through a few graduate programs (and graduated from 2), I can't say I've seen institutional sexism there in any greater force than elsewhere in our society.

What you seem to be describing isn't so much the school, but in the field the school is supposedly preparing you for.


----------



## Clavis

One of the hardest lessons of my life has been learning that some problems cannot be solved, only endured.

 The lack of female D&D players seems to be one of those problems.

 In my experience, most woman don't really care about the fantasy artwork, the inherent violence of the game, or any other genre convention of fantasy.  After all, if inherent misogynism and sexism actually kept woman away, the 80s glam-metal scene wouldn't have existed. What seems to turn off women from D&D is the idea of being associated with male gamers. Many woman have an intensely negative stereotype about D&D players, and a fear that their social reputation will be ruined if they are known to have contact with gamers. Bereft of a female presence at their game tables, most D&D players simply re-enforce sexist stereotypes in their games. The vicious cycle continues, and I don't think all the marketing in the world or revising of the rules is ever going to change it.

 If the media was filled with images of D&D players as desirable mates, the kind that would make all of a woman's friends envious, the books could be filled with pure filth and women would still be clamoring to join D&D games. But it's never going to happen.

 For all the work that has gone into making D&D less sexist since 2nd Edition, I've noticed fewer female gamers interested in D&D, not more. As long as the game is called Dungeons and Dragons, I don't believe that it will ever be able to successfully marketed to a significantly larger female audience. The brand is at this point too closely associated with a type of gamer that most woman simply do not want to  socialize with, and I see no viable mechanism through which that perception can be changed.

 It's a shame, because I find playing in all-male groups to be far less fun and interesting than playing in mixed groups. I've accepted, however, that as long as I want to play D&D female gamers will be the exception, not the rule.


----------



## Korgoth

In our gaming group, everyone must come attired in an androgynous jumpsuit and address fellow players with the gender-neutral term "comrade". Characters may not use swords, spears or other oppressive phallocentric weapons. When making an attack, the sexist paleo-linguistic artifact-phrase "I thrust..." must be replaced with "I unfairly subjugate...".

All sexist pictures in our books have had beefcake pictures pasted over them. From a reactionaly-bourgeoise perspective that may sound like a form of "sexism" to you, but remember that the dynamics of superexploitative cultural products require a dyad of "oppressor-oppressed". Therefore it is impossible for beefcake art to actually be sexist. Rather, its existence reverses and overthrows the tyranny of exploitative "cheesecake" art. Fortunately no one at the table enjoys looking at the beefcake pictures, so it helps us keep our minds on the advancement of the revolution through proper gaming.

Dialectical materialism has allowed us to _scientifically prove_ the superiority of our method. History is on our side, Larry Elmore... we will bury you!


----------



## Cadfan

Doug McCrae said:


> It is sexist, but in a good way. Any product must have a target market, that's just good business. But to identify such a market, whether it's geeks or sports fans or teenagers or men or women, is necessarily exclusionary.



Yeah... I find myself reaching for new or different terminology.  I wish there was an easy way to note which sort of sexism I refer to: the "sexism" of marketing a game to a target gender demographic, the "sexism" of explicitly attempting to exclude a gender, the "sexism" of merely failing to take efforts to include a gender, the "sexism" of excluding a gender or failing to include it in a context where it seems culturally reasonable to do so, the "sexism" of excluding a gender or failing to include it where it does not seem culturally reasonable to do so...

I could probably go on.

I just don't like trying to work my way around a set of terminology that uses the same word, "sexist," to describe something like My Little Pony and something like a golf course that refuses to sell tickets to women.


----------



## Mallus

Clavis said:


> One of the hardest lessons of my life has been learning that some problems cannot be solved, only endured.



And misdiagnosed!



> In my experience, most woman don't really care about the fantasy artwork, the inherent violence of the game, or any other genre convention of fantasy.



Exactly! Most women in my experience don't care for that sort of thing. Some do, though.



> After all, if inherent misogynism and sexism actually kept woman away, the 80s glam-metal scene wouldn't have existed.



Not all misogyny and sexism are created equal.



> What seems to turn off women from D&D is the idea of being associated with male gamers.



If this were true, me and a lot of my friends wouldn't be married/involved. Though, to be fair, we are a handsome lot, given to charm...


----------



## S'mon

Bumbles said:


> Your query has been addressed in the countless existing threads discussing the relative merits of 4th edition, and is really independent of any gender-bias that may exist in it.
> 
> If you think 4e is that way, and it bothers you, then start playing it another way is the only advice I can offer.




My query wasn't about 4e, I'm sorry if including my observation re 2e sexism vs 4e sexism was misleading.  

My query concerned the aim of the anti-sexism drive; is it to make a game appealing to most women (or at least as high a proportion of women as men - most men don't like D&D either, after all) - arguably Blue Rose attempted that.  Or is it to make a game which seeks to make guy stuff (kill-loot-power up) not exclusionary to the relatively few women who like that kind of thing?  That seems to be the 4e route, IMO.


----------



## Bumbles

Cadfan said:


> Yeah... I find myself reaching for new or different terminology.




Might I suggest, Gender-oriented, or gender-favored instead?


----------



## billd91

S'mon said:


> Isn't a game about killing things, taking their stuff, and getting more powerful (better at killing things) a game that caters to male power fantasies, and thus inherently sexist?  Some women enjoy those male power fantasies of killing and looting themselves, but most don't, and thus are inherently excluded.




I believe there's a problem with the query. D&D isn't and never has been just about killing things and taking their stuff. It has been an element and some styles of play do focus on it, true. But I belive that statement, sometimes used flippantly and sometimes not, has been tossed around far too often to marginalize different views of the game and play styles that profess to focus on something other than the combat aspects of the game.


----------



## Lwaxy

roguerouge said:


> Is it the girly part or the witchy part?
> 
> If your daughter wanted to be femme, would you actively try to thwart her desire to express herself? Or if she was merely curious about what being femme was like, and wanted to try it out in her imagination through this game?
> 
> If it's because the girly and the witchy parts are combined, well, then what do you want for representation of witches: back to green hags only?
> 
> I'm genuinely puzzled as to why you're reacting this way, because you've not presented any evidence for your position beyond the fact that it's girly.




I think I answered this in the other thread already. It is not "femme" it is stereotype. The exact kind of stereotype harming our kids. It is the media painting girls as liking those colours (no pun intended) but this is not so true. A while ago I talked with a niece about all the bonbon coloured toys she had, and wow, she didn't like the colours. It was just that this type of toys DID NOT COME in a non-bonbon colour. Because it was doll stuff. If it had been up to her, she would have prefered blue and green colours over pink, purple and yellow. Same way my son never found soccer shoes in pink. It is a girl colour, made so only by the media (originally blue was girly and pink way boyish) so of course no such shoes were on sale. Plus, he quickly became afraid he'd be seen as girly for liking those types of colours. He was about 6 when he was attacked by a much older boy calling him gay for wearing a neon yellow sweater. Such stereotypes are not healthy. They are, however, good for the market, especially with the right advertising.  There is nothing "femme" about that. 

And if I had a daughter, she likely would have inherited my obesity and would be overweight in her teenage years. I very much doubt that some ideal weight characters would hold much appeal. 

And yes, I do not like girly stuff combined with witch stuff. It gives all the wrong impressions, as I already explained in the other thread. I don't know where you pull up the green hag from. What about a more trutful representation of girls to begin with? All of the characters on the witch girl website have neon coloured backgrounds, save the necro girl, and that one, of course, is purple (this actually makes sense going by gothic style girls) and the only one not looking as if she was about to go to a fashion show is Amy. And even Monica looks like she's just spent hours on her make up - highly unlikely for a computer geek witch. None of those characters feels real. Now of course the game isn't about realism, but teenagers identify themselves more with their PCs in my experience, and young girls also seem to build female PCs more on what they would like to be. It is great for perfect looking girls to play this, the average akne-plagued teenager without perfect weight and hair would probably feel depressed in the long run. Yes, I've seen this happen in murder mystery RPGs, and I am rather sure it will happen with this one especially. 

Now maybe you plan to encourage players to create less ideal PCs, but it didn't seem so from the website. 

Now you keep going on about "not presenting evidence." You should probably have read my posts better then. Do I need to post EVIDENCE in front of it all? Not that it would help much because you'd likely ignore it as not important. 

I'm sure that more girls will have fun with this than get depressed over it, mainly because I cannot see an obese, self conscious girl try this out, or the teenager with the think hair that never looks right (or maybe that is a reason to be depressed as well). I still think the concept has not been thought through to the end. but then, it is based on a book and didn't have that much space to adapt, I guess.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

S'mon said:


> I think this thread is well into 'political' territory, but since the mods don't seem to mind, I have a query:
> 
> Isn't a game about killing things, taking their stuff, and getting more powerful (better at killing things) a game that caters to male power fantasies, and thus inherently sexist?  Some women enjoy those male power fantasies of killing and looting themselves, but most don't, and thus are inherently excluded.



But is it true that women don#t enjoy these power fantasies, too? Is making a general assumption on this not potentially sexist? 

Maybe it would be enough to state it clearly that women can be part of these power fantasies, too? That they are not just there for the sex appeal, but they are depicted as capable warriors and wizards, as cunning leaders or gifted sages? And from the Villain perspective, that they could also be brutal tyrants, murderous assassins and ancient liches?


----------



## Bumbles

S'mon said:


> My query wasn't about 4e, I'm sorry if including my observation re 2e sexism vs 4e sexism was misleading.




Well, my suggestion still applies, play the game (whatever game it may be) in the way you enjoy it.  Really, that's the only thing I can imagine working, as it seems to be people perceive the nature of the games so differently, I have to ascribe much of it to personal opinion, and ultimately that makes it an insurmountable problem.

Of course, you may find some people still don't like it.  This may or may not include a gap in genders, and may not be related to the game itself, but a perception of it, because as mentioned above, there are folks who think D&D is that thing for geeks, or even who think it is the work of the devil.

To put it another way, I find the premise on which you're asking the question to be flawed.  Sometimes it's not just what you're asking, but how you're asking it that matters.

And whoa, a bunch of us going in the same direction already.   Interesting!  Feel free to reply to one of them instead.


----------



## billd91

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Basically, though, the chart reflects _Gary's_ perspective on the sexes of those who prostitute themselves, not the historical reality.




The chart is clearly an element of old-boy humor, but it also serves an example of using the richness of language to evoke different imagery with just a few, well-selected words. And I think that's partly why it's a favorite element of the 1e DMG.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Now_ that_ confuses me...I'm the grandson of 2 graduate profs, I've been through a few graduate programs (and graduated from 2), I can't say I've seen institutional sexism there in any greater force than elsewhere in our society.
> 
> What you seem to be describing isn't so much the school, but in the field the school is supposedly preparing you for.




It doesn't really surprise or confuse me, but I don't think it's necessarily blatant sexism in the graduate programs. I think it may have to do with assumptions of what the grad student has to do and how is affected by the underlying sexism of society in general. 

Some graduate programs are grueling in the number of hours they require the student to put in. Hundreds of pages of effective reading, classes to teach, hours in the lab, and so on, every week. And this is right around the time a lot of people start to have families as well. And as far as society has come, the underlying assumption is that the mother will be the primary parent to take off time - first for prenatal care, maternity leave, when the kids get sick, the whole 9 yards. How compatible is that with some of the more grueling graduate programs out there? Are the expected workloads for those programs geared toward society's view of the male parent role? If so, that's some institutional sexism right there and you can certainly expect more female drop-outs as a result.


----------



## Lwaxy

Bumbles said:


> Might I suggest, Gender-oriented, or gender-favored instead?




Thanks, that sounds much better.


----------



## ajanders

[Deletia]
 It is great for perfect looking girls to play this, the average akne-plagued teenager without perfect weight and hair would probably feel depressed in the long run. Yes, I've seen this happen in murder mystery RPGs, and I am rather sure it will happen with this one especially. 

Now maybe you plan to encourage players to create less ideal PCs, but it didn't seem so from the website. 

[Deletia]

As a person of the male gender, I can assure you that when I was an acne-plagued teenager without perfect weight and hair my characters were much cooler looking than I was. Except for the Dralasite.

In fact, my characters today are still much cooler-looking than I am: more devilishly charming, more ruggedly handsome, yadda-yadda...
Of course, I still don't have the perfect weight, but my hair and acne have improved.

Idealized people are a basic trend in art and in fantasy: this is not a gender specific issue.


----------



## shilsen

S'mon said:


> Isn't a game about killing things, taking their stuff, and getting more powerful (better at killing things) a game that caters to male power fantasies, and thus inherently sexist?  Some women enjoy those male power fantasies of killing and looting themselves, but most don't, and thus are inherently excluded.




I don't think so, but then I don't think those power fantasies are intrinsically male. I think they're just power fantasies. I also think that there's a lot more to D&D than power fantasies.



> And it seems to me that 4e D&D is if anything much more narrowly focused on the kill-loot fantasy than was 2e AD&D.  Thus even as the art is 'less sexist', the game itself is 'more sexist'.




Without getting into edition wars, I disagree. I think 4e D&D is no more or less focused on the kill-loot angle than any other edition.  



> People, especially female players & GMs, have always used D&D for different stories than the inherent power-fantasy one, but if anything that's harder now.




My reading of the rules and experience clearly differs from yours. And I seriously doubt that there's any truth to that assertion that "especially female players & GMs" have used D&D for different ends. GMs and players have and do. I don't think there's any gender component there either. I've run D&D games for men and women who were previously gamers and for those who were completely new to it and had no real interest in focusing on power-fantasies. They played it many different ways and I didn't see it map onto gender in any way.



> Or is that the 'anti sexists' want girls to be like boys - they want a game that encourages female players to enjoy the same kill-loot-power fantasy that most males like, without feeling excluded by sexist art or sexist game-world cultures?




I simply don't want women (or anyone, for that matter) to be excluded from the game by sexist art, game-world cultures or players. But I certainly don't think they need to focus on the same kill-loot-power fantasy as you put it. God knows I don't a lot of the time, nor do a lot of other people.



Taralan said:


> Altought I can see the remaining subtle sexism in D&D (lets call it male-centrism) it seems to me that it is rather mild and certainly less so than many other hobbys including most of all professionnal sports and related entertainment. The new editions make it a point to promote strong female characters in all roles and class, really diminishing the feeling of exclusion.




No disagreement about it being better than it's ever been, certainly.



> It seems to me that D&D is far more subtly racist now than sexist. A sample of the art rarely depicts anything other than white characters except in very traditional depiction of semi-historical culture, such as the mwangi in pathfinder or the calimshan in FR for example... altough this too is getting better lately.




True. And some of the art which depicts non-white characters tends to devolve into, for lack of a better word, orientalism too. I think Eberron has been a little better in this regard as well, since I seem to recall the pictures of people from the primary nations not being mainly or majorly white. But I could be misremembering. And yes, this too has improved.



> And of course, it is 20 times more heterocentric then male centric. I am unaware of any mention or depiction of homosexuality at all in the 40 years of existence of the game, be it in art, settings, adventure etc.... (except perhaps fringe products like the book of erotic fantasy).




Definitely true. When my girlfriend and I had the conversations about D&D which sparked this thread, the issues of racism and heterocentrism in D&D were something we discussed. I just happened to focus on one of the three in this thread.



Ycore Rixle said:


> That's not true for gaming. People freely choosing to act according to their will does not subordinate anyone else. No D&D gamer's choice forces another player into a subordinate position. Put it this way: If one group chooses to call their gaming group the He-Man Woman-Haters D&D club, that doesn't subordinate women. It might be stupid, rude, irrepsonsible, and risible, but it's not subordinating anyone else. It's just their choice. People choosing what they want to do, of their own free will, doesn't force anyone else to do anything, or assume any particular position, be it subordinate, ordinate, or cardinal.




Let's just say you have a very different idea of how people's surrounding culture(s) mediate their choices than I do.



1Mac said:


> I'm reminded of Brienne in A Song of Ice and Fire, who also works pretty darn well. There's a trick to this sort of thing, however, to play it so it doesn't seem like you are creating such characters specifically to counter perceived stereotypes. Otherwise the pandering inherent becomes more sexist than if you had just left it alone.




True. A lot of it is in the presentation. 



> Joss Whedon, who is of course my master, nevertheless frequently skirts this line, and it is only because he is such a good writer that he usually avoids crossing it. Stuff like the Charlie's Angels remake, or Kiera Knightly's Gweneviere in that King Arthur movie, Keira Knightly's character in Pirates of the Caribbean ("Try wearing a corsette!") cross it with reckless, hilarious aplomb. My point being that if you are trying to correct for sexism, rather than create interesting characters, you frequently fall on your face.




I'll agree about the preferred aim being to create interesting characters rather than simply correct for sexism, though I'm not sure I'd buy all your examples as successful ones. Joss, I agree, is brilliant at it most of the time. 

For me, however, the shining example of how to do it right is _Battlestar Galactica_. Now there's a show full of interesting, multifaceted people. They are sometimes strong, sometimes not, sometimes right, sometimes wrong, and invariably always complex and compelling. And none of that maps inherently onto gender, which is why when BSG shows you a woman being rescued by a man, it's not the least bit sexist, because it's abundantly clear that she could just as well be rescued by another woman, and a man could just as well be rescued by a woman as by another man. And so on.



> Also, in general, you could be forgiven for reading my OP and thinking that I thought the fantasy tropes I mentioned were in fact sexist, but I am not sure that is the case. That is, telling stories about beefy Herculeans hewing ogres and rescuing princesses is not in itself sexist. It is only in the context of a culture where those are the only stories being told, and where female passivity is the enforced cultural norm--as is the uber-action-male--are those stories problematic. But the story itself is neutral, and given that our cultural context is much different, I see nothing wrong in retelling such stories.




I agree about the story itself being neutral and the context being what makes it problematical or not. I'm guessing that I'm much more aware of or sensitive to the fact that our cultural context, even if very different, is still a very sexist and gender-skewed one, so I see those stories as potentially problematical if not used well. 



> I'm glad you concede that it could be a matter of personal taste, but I'll just clarify that this seems a minority position, depending on what you mean by justifying sexism. If you mean telling the sort of classic stories I outline, then that seems rather extreme. It certainly doesn't mean that anyone who tells such stories in their games is being sexist.




Yes, I get that mine might be a minority position. And no, I don't mean that telling such stories is being sexist. I've told such stories in my games, but they just didn't necessarily map onto gender the way the originals did.


----------



## Lwaxy

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But is it true that women don#t enjoy these power fantasies, too? Is making a general assumption on this not potentially sexist?
> 
> Maybe it would be enough to state it clearly that women can be part of these power fantasies, too? That they are not just there for the sex appeal, but they are depicted as capable warriors and wizards, as cunning leaders or gifted sages? And from the Villain perspective, that they could also be brutal tyrants, murderous assassins and ancient liches?




Could it be that the way fantasy art portrays women is part of the problem? 

A few years ago I knew a young woman who was a really good artist. She, too, while being rather the tomboy, portrayed females the usual, sexy looking way in her fantasy art. She did this because everyone else did it. At the same time, she had some trouble with the type of gear available for her female character in a computer game - mainly miniskirts and weird bras. 

I may be wrong, because the same type of art is on book covers and those books are bought by females. But I can imagine non-artist females may not bother to look beyond the outward appearance of some fantasy in general, and especially RPGs where still more men play.


----------



## Doug McCrae

billd91 said:


> I believe there's a problem with the query. D&D isn't and never has been just about killing things and taking their stuff. It has been an element and some styles of play do focus on it, true. But I belive that statement, sometimes used flippantly and sometimes not, has been tossed around far too often to marginalize different views of the game and play styles that profess to focus on something other than the combat aspects of the game.



It's the default mode of play. It's by far and away the most strongly supported by the rules. The classes are all good at killing things, or assisting in killing. The DMG has extensive rules for making dungeons and (prior to 4e) lots of space devoted to magic items. The MM is nothing but monsters to kill.

D&D isn't Call of Cthulhu. It's not Vampire. Both appeal a lot more strongly to women, imo.


----------



## Lwaxy

ajanders said:


> As a person of the male gender, I can assure you that when I was an acne-plagued teenager without perfect weight and hair my characters were much cooler looking than I was. Except for the Dralasite.
> 
> In fact, my characters today are still much cooler-looking than I am: more devilishly charming, more ruggedly handsome, yadda-yadda...
> Of course, I still don't have the perfect weight, but my hair and acne have improved.
> 
> Idealized people are a basic trend in art and in fantasy: this is not a gender specific issue.




Yeah true. However, girls ARE more sensitive about their appearance. I'm not sure if this is only due to the media, but it certainly plays a part. I would much rather see an rpg where the average sized, average looking PC of either gender can be as much or even more the hero than the pimped up supermodel fighter


----------



## gizmo33

The whole thing is self-reinforcing.  The fewer women play DnD, the more alien the environment will be for women culturally.  If I mention I play DnD, 90% of guys look at me funny, but 10% of guys are tolerant for some reason (because the play or do something similar or are geeks).  IME the same situation for women is about 99.9% to .1%.

IME women are as aggressive about supporting the current gender roles as men are (look at their mate selection, soap-operas, etc.)  Women I've played DnD with aren't congratulated for it by their female friends.  I look forward to hearing about a woman who sits in her house and works on an adventure to run with her friends for six hours straight, and if a certain RPG can accomplish that then more power to it.  I won't hold my breath.


----------



## Lwaxy

shilsen said:


> And some of the art which depicts non-white characters tends to devolve into, for lack of a better word, orientalism too. I think Eberron has been a little better in this regard as well, since I seem to recall the pictures of people from the primary nations not being mainly or majorly white. But I could be misremembering. And yes, this too has improved.




Now that you mention it... I never paid attention to that. Maybe the market was originally aimed at caucasian people? Or maybe it is just because the artists were white. We tend to portray ourselves in our art, as i have noticed.


----------



## ajanders

*And to wrap this up...*

Shilsen, the answer is simple.

You and your girlfriend will just have to start running a D&D "Arcane Female" campaign.

All characters are female and use the arcane power source. Any race applies.
Monsters must be either flammable or fit inside a tendriculos.

I'll look for the Story Hour.

Seriously.

The sexism you're decrying is not part of the D&D rules: it's part of the D&D setting and players.
Greyhawk and the Realms are sexist because they date back to the 70's: given the cultural baggage of the 70's, I'm grateful they retained sexism and not bell-bottoms and platform shoes: I acknowledge that opinions differ.
That sexism has been retained because nobody really wanted to blow up Greyhawk and the Realms to satisfy some poorly defined notions of gender equity.

Eberron was fresh-written by much more enlightened people in a new century, so it's much more gender equitable and presumably makes gaming more attractive to people of both genders. Wait another thirty years and someone might write a setting you feel appropriately balances both genders.
(By then, of course, we'll be post-singularity and the emergent AI's will be complaining about the treatment of warforged. I look forward to being dead by then.)

All I really can say at this point is that if you want a setting that treats females to your tastes, you'll clearly have to build it yourself and release it into the Internet. If five billion people download it and start playing D&D because of it, Wizards will either buy it from you or cease and desist you for violating their license arrangements.
I don't believe that will happen: I believe if there was a vast audience of people looking to play the female friendly fantasy of Mercedes Lackey, Blue Rose would be a booming game and and Green Ronin would be the leading FRPG company of the industry.
That's not my understanding of the reality of the FRPG industry today.


----------



## Obryn

Korgoth said:


> ....



So do you usually find parodying people you don't agree with productive to a discussion?

-O


----------



## shilsen

Lwaxy said:


> Could it be that the way fantasy art portrays women is part of the problem?




Definitely, in my estimation. 



> A few years ago I knew a young woman who was a really good artist. She, too, while being rather the tomboy, portrayed females the usual, sexy looking way in her fantasy art. She did this because everyone else did it.




I'm not surprised. That's one of the issues I have with the "but women are doing it so it's not sexist" argument. People tend to reinforce the status quo in most fields, and if the status quo is sexist, whether you're male or female it's easy to end up being sexist too.



> I may be wrong, because the same type of art is on book covers and those books are bought by females.




I don't think you're wrong. Just because you buy a book doesn't mean you have to like the cover. I obviously think a lot of fantasy art is lousy. But I still play D&D. I just also start a thread and bitch on ENWorld 



> But I can imagine non-artist females may not bother to look beyond the outward appearance of some fantasy in general, and especially RPGs where still more men play.




Quite possibly.



Lwaxy said:


> Yeah true. However, girls ARE more sensitive about their appearance. I'm not sure if this is only due to the media, but it certainly plays a part.




Agreed. I touched on this earlier in the thread, when someone mentioned discrimination based on appearance. That absolutely exists in our society, but it impacts women far more often.



> I would much rather see an rpg where the average sized, average looking PC of either gender can be as much or even more the hero than the pimped up supermodel fighter




Same here. And I'm not just saying that because 5 ft 4 inch tall Indian men lget no love in fantasy art 



Lwaxy said:


> Now that you mention it... I never paid attention to that.




I think a lot of people don't think twice about it, esp. in places where being Caucasian is seen as normative.



> Maybe the market was originally aimed at caucasian people? Or maybe it is just because the artists were white. We tend to portray ourselves in our art, as i have noticed.




A combination of both factors, I think.


----------



## Ariosto

S'mon said:


> Isn't a game about killing things, taking their stuff, and getting more powerful (better at killing things) a game that caters to male power fantasies, and thus inherently sexist?



The sexual *stereotype* above is inherently sexist -- albeit actually reflective of broad demographics -- but not the game itself. Likewise, there is nothing inherently sexist about a bare breast, but in some societies there is a sexist taboo that makes it improper.

That the morality of a game with such a premise is not controversial, but that perceived sexism associated with it is, would in some quarters seem a pathological inversion of priorities.

The 1E urban encounters table includes harlots for the same reason as beggars and brigands; drunks and demons; gentlemen and goodwives; laborers and lycanthropes; and so on. Like the whole of AD&D, it was a reflection of Gygax's Greyhawk campaign -- which in turn reflected, through a personal lens, the genre of sword-and-sorcery and planetary romances. The city depicted is one not too strange to a reader of Leigh Brackett, Robert E. Howard or (perhaps above all) Fritz Leiber, whose Lankhmar bore some resemblance to the Los Angeles he knew.


*Human* evil, evil by desire and deed, is a central theme in the sources. They are rather short on fantastic monsters "color-coded" as Existentially Evil. There are predators that would treat adventurers as prey, which is to the latter an inconvenience -- but not a matter of morality. Greed, hatred, and all the other sins that produce injustice in the world pertain to people; and most of the people in the world are as human as any in ours (without even the distinctions of pointed ears or hairy feet).

The suggestion in this day and age that a *historical* fiction need be bowdlerized for the sake of feminine sensibilities would, I think, be obviously patronizing -- and obviously ignorant of the contents of "romance novels".

I do not see that such an element in the basic rules text is necessary. There was no urban encounter table in the original set. More to the point is that 4E (unless I missed them) seems to provide not even underworld and wilderness encounter tables.

On the other hand, I have but a little patience for those who (in any of a number of areas) embark on crusades to make D&D officially something else. There are plenty of somethings else from which to choose, and there is as much room for more as there is real demand for something different.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

This is all very aside from the point, but I guess it underlines how pervasive these problems are even in the places that are supposed to be "above" sexism, so here we go....



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Now_ that_ confuses me...I'm the grandson of 2 graduate profs, I've been through a few graduate programs (and graduated from 2), I can't say I've seen institutional sexism there in any greater force than elsewhere in our society.
> 
> What you seem to be describing isn't so much the school, but in the field the school is supposedly preparing you for.



There isn't really a clear line between graduate school and academia (not in the research institutions my wife and I graduated from, at any rate).  I guess I should have said "academia" instead of graduate school, because it's really just as much about the post-graduate period as it is about the environment in school.

My wife and I both melted down and exited with Master's degrees, and she is in the process of getting a second master's in a different field.  Before I became a grad student, I worked in technical and writing capacities in academia... and I'm back there now.  We have been _all up in_ for a while.  And it is quite sexist.  Her first field was the classic "good ol' boys" applied nonsense.  There are about 2-3 departments in the country where you can be a woman and be evaluated fairly alongside men for any position, and forget about tenure.  Mine was just the usual run of the mill "try to get tenure before your ovaries give out" nonsense that billd91 touched on.  But when the average number of post doctoral fellowships before professorship continuing to rise at a ridiculous rate, time is not on your side.

Of course, baby-making isn't currently on our agenda at all, so those issues didn't keep us up at night.  In my case, working with neuroscientists and psychologists who couldn't keep their bias (gender and otherwise) out of their experimental design sort of flipped my switch.  And my wife's was flipped by a combination of factors, including dreadful communication and obstructionist behavior from everyone involved, academically and socially.  A desire to get married was seen as a distraction from her work and she was castigated for it, especially _by other women_ (for that extra bit of sickness).  I can't imagine what they would have done if we'd been talking about procreation.

Furthermore, the vast majority of the successful women we knew in academia had given up a lot more to get where they were.  The politics-as-usual really reinforce a male gender role, even in fields where they allegedly understand those social dynamics.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Ariosto said:


> The suggestion in this day and age that a *historical* fiction need be bowdlerized for the sake of feminine sensibilities would, I think, be obviously patronizing -- and obviously ignorant of the contents of "romance novels".



D&D isn't based on historical fiction, all the books in the DMG 1e appendix are speculative fiction. Conan lives in a world that never existed, likewise Cugel, Elric and the Gray Mouser.


----------



## billd91

Doug McCrae said:


> It's the default mode of play. It's by far and away the most strongly supported by the rules. The classes are all good at killing things, or assisting in killing. The DMG has extensive rules for making dungeons and (prior to 4e) lots of space devoted to magic items. The MM is nothing but monsters to kill.
> 
> D&D isn't Call of Cthulhu. It's not Vampire. Both appeal a lot more strongly to women, imo.




The default mode of play *used* to revolve around individual characters taking on missions to support medieval armies. It also used to revolve around exploration as much as killing creatures and taking their stuff, as well as establishing strongholds and attracting followers. But limiting D&D to killing things and taking their stuff requires looking at D&D through a pretty narrow lens.

The DMG used to include substantial rules for building castles and finding expert hirelings to work there. And the Monster Manual included monsters that could be encountered in quite a variety of ways, perhaps for alliance and cooperation, maybe advice, and not always with hostility.

If D&D now truly has become a smash and grab game and that fails to appeal to female players, then you're basically saying WotC's efforts to gender-neutralize the rules is tilting at windmills. I'm not convinced that's the case because I'm not convinced that women aren't attracted to the smash and grab game from time to time. But then, I'm convinced that D&D is far more than that... or used to be.


----------



## Doug McCrae

billd91 said:


> But then, I'm convinced that D&D is far more than that... or used to be.



I see all the editions as pretty similar in this respect. 2e got furthest away from it but it was still the default. You mention exploration as a big part of the game, sure, but I don't see "finding things, killing them and taking their stuff" as expressing a majorly different concept than "killing things and taking their stuff". Strongholds were never strongly supported, outside of Birthright which actually does have a different default mode of play than the core rules.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

billd91 said:


> Some graduate programs are grueling in the number of hours they require the student to put in. Hundreds of pages of effective reading, classes to teach, hours in the lab, and so on, every week. And this is right around the time a lot of people start to have families as well. And as far as society has come, the underlying assumption is that the mother will be the primary parent to take off time - first for prenatal care, maternity leave, when the kids get sick, the whole 9 yards. How compatible is that with some of the more grueling graduate programs out there? Are the expected workloads for those programs geared toward society's view of the male parent role? If so, that's some institutional sexism right there and you can certainly expect more female drop-outs as a result.




Graduate programs of any kind are not for the weak.  My Dad (an MD) knew at least one fellow in his program who had a psychotic break.

Personally, I watched people take up smoking, become alcoholics, and saw someone pass out babbling at the Tx Bar exam.

Another buddy of mine was taking the Cali Bar exam in another location when another person had a heart attack...and only 2 people stopped to render CPR.  They weren't given extra time to complete the test until there was a public outcry.

My MBA program was only marginally better.

And into that kind of pressure cooker you try to start a family?   Not the best of ideas.

However, I will say that of those people I knew personally, the primary childrearing was usually shared.  The students were in a grind, yes, but none of their working spouses had significantly more time either.  When serious time binds for one cropped up, the other picked up the slack...and vice versa.

Probably an artifact of the modern American family and changing expectations...

The one common difference I did notice between the grad students of varying genders was that when the Mom was the student, the Dad and kids got a crash course in what she did around the house.  Daddy students rarely seemed to have any house-crucial tasks to spread around- though there may have been some "honey-do" type things that didn't get mentioned (IOW, Mom gets to fix the wobble in the table, and the kids do the yardwork, not Dad).

As for compatibility with the family lifestyle, I'm seeing more and more programs adopting significant numbers of online classes, and some have abandoned a graduation schedule completely.  You take classes at your own rate.

For instance, Texas Weslyan Law School in the D/FW area is set up specifically for working adults.  Most, if not all, of their classes are in the afternoon or night.  AFAIK, they don't even ask for students to graduate between in 3-5 years.

But the grind is still there.


----------



## Proserpine

billd91 said:


> If D&D now truly has become a smash and grab game and that fails to appeal to female players, then you're basically saying WotC's efforts to gender-neutralize the rules is tilting at windmills. I'm not convinced that's the case because I'm not convinced that women aren't attracted to the smash and grab game from time to time. But then, I'm convinced that D&D is far more than that... or used to be.




I agree with this a lot... 

Seems some people are being reductive about D&D in order to justify the male-centrism. Just the fact that people play so differently means that no one can pigeonhole D&D as a "smash and grab" activity, or (referencing some earlier arguments) something that is too "mathematical!!!" for the typical woman to enjoy.


----------



## resistor

Proserpine said:


> My point is, these things aren't interchangeable, since one gender has historically been subordinated to the other in many areas, including gaming. Think of it this way (and I'm not trying to play oppression olympics, just trying to intellectualize the issue): you (hopefully) wouldn't call Black History Month racist, or Women's History Month sexist. Because... well, every other month is about the pursuits of white men.




Actually, I have an issue with the idea behind BHM and/or WHM:  they claim that some people's "differentness" is more important than other people's "differentness."  I don't begrudge the existence of BHM/WHM per se, but I do resent the implication that certain heritages are more deserving of recognition than others.

I think the key phrase in your assertion is "the pursuits of white men."  I'm going to hypothesize a bit here, but I do not believe that there is a single person in the world the entirety of whose identity is "white man."  All those people you refer to as "white men" are American, or English, or Scottish, etc.  Or maybe they identify by creed, or by profession, or by region of birth.

My issue with the concept of a unitary group of "white men" is that it implies that they are the default majority on everything, when for any particular is not.  Every person is made up of so many different identity elements that the fraction of people who hold the majority identity on every single one is vanishingly small.

Who gets to decide which "heritages" are important enough to get months, and which aren't?  So, why don't I have my Scottish heritage month?  What about Southern pride?  (OK, I knew people growing up for whom every day was Southern pride day, so that one might be a bit moot...)  What about Catholics-in-the-USA?

I am white.  I am male.  But that is not _who I am_.  I, too, have heritages that are part of my identity, and resent the implication that they're not important.


----------



## Ariosto

Doug McCrae said:


> D&D isn't based on historical fiction, all the books in the DMG 1e appendix are speculative fiction. Conan lives in a world that never existed, likewise Cugel, Elric and the Gray Mouser.



Do you mean to derive some conclusion from that observation?

To make plain my own point: I see no reason for a double standard.


----------



## Proserpine

ajanders said:


> Shilsen, the answer is simple.
> 
> You and your girlfriend will just have to start running a D&D "Arcane Female" campaign.
> 
> All characters are female and use the arcane power source. Any race applies.
> Monsters must be either flammable or fit inside a tendriculos.
> 
> I'll look for the Story Hour.




Joking or not, that's a ridiculously rude and patronizing response.



> The sexism you're decrying is not part of the D&D rules: it's part of the D&D setting and players.



And guess what? It's problematic. Hence the post. I don't know why some responders keep mentioning the mechanics and rules: we know they aren't sexist. But what you mentioned is, and that's not okay.



> Greyhawk and the Realms are sexist because they date back to the 70's: given the cultural baggage of the 70's, I'm grateful they retained sexism and not bell-bottoms and platform shoes: I acknowledge that opinions differ.
> That sexism has been retained because nobody really wanted to blow up Greyhawk and the Realms to satisfy some poorly defined notions of gender equity.



Well, if WotC wonders why it isn't attracting new players, I guess they can look towards "nobody" (which, funnily enough, narrowly includes people that have already been playing the game for awhile) not wanting their escapist fantasy game to cater equally to both sexes.  I am younger than the average person here, and it's really jarring to play in settings that, for no rhyme or reason, are disproportionately male with regards to the pantheon (which barely has any historical justification, as even super sexist Greeks had interesting female goddesses in near equal proportions, both minor and major) and the leadership. It. Is. Dated. It is also implicitly sexist. Both are bad. Admitting to the former and making it seem like a good, awesome thing doesn't make the latter okay all of a sudden. 



> All I really can say at this point is that if you want a setting that treats females to your tastes, you'll clearly have to build it yourself and release it into the Internet.



So giving equal gender representation and encouraging better player attitudes towards females requires a new setting? Even as a female, my desire game wise is the same as many guys - I just don't think it makes sense to treat a particular gender unequally in something that should serve as an escapist, fun activity for _everyone_.


----------



## billd91

resistor said:


> Actually, I have an issue with the idea behind BHM and/or WHM:  they claim that some people's "differentness" is more important than other people's "differentness."  I don't begrudge the existence of BHM/WHM per se, but I do resent the implication that certain heritages are more deserving of recognition than others.




But you have to realize, and this is what a lot of the backlash against BHM and WHM misses (in many cases, intentionally), is that the history of the US has made these very differences critical, far more critical in the long run than the differences between most European ethnic groups most often lumped together as "white". That's why these particular differences matter and are called out in specialty history months.
There's all sorts of diversity out there, not just gender and racial. But some have been more important to the development of the US and are more relevant today than others. And these are the ones that require the extra attention.


----------



## Proserpine

resistor said:


> I am white.  I am male.  But that is not _who I am_.  I, too, have heritages that are part of my identity, and resent the implication that they're not important.




Hello there. I was expecting for someone to take issue with that. My response would be way too political and get into some fancy feminist and race rhetoric, which isn't really appropriate for this forum. So I'll leave my response to this: even if I disagree, thanks for phrasing that so politely.


----------



## Doug McCrae

Proserpine said:


> Seems some people are being reductive about D&D in order to justify the male-centrism.



I think Shilsen's call for more equal numbers of male and female NPCs and non-sexist art is quite reasonable because it would be easy to change and I doubt any male customers would be lost as a result. As an example, I'm a big fan of the Eberron setting and until Shilsen mentioned it I hadn't even noticed it had more balanced gender representation. That shows nothing is being lost, at least for me.

Vampire demonstrates it's possible to have pictures of attractive, sexy women in an rpg without being sexist. While I do like the bare midriff on the PHB 4 cover, mostly because it's so contemporary (like the 70s moustaches in 1e art which seem so dated now), showing cleavage, midriff and thigh is going a bit far.

That said I think D&D has some intrinsic features which means even if those changes are made it will never appeal to women anything like as much as men. For the same reason action movies and shoot-em-up videogames are more popular with men while romcoms and Harlequin novels are more popular with women.


----------



## Mallus

Doug McCrae said:


> I think Shilsen's call for more equal numbers of male and female NPCs... is quite reasonable



Heh... that's because you're not the guy who has to create a whole bunch of new, and hopefully well-characterized female NPC's for shil's campaign.

At least I'll have help .


----------



## S'mon

Lwaxy said:


> And if I had a daughter, she likely would have inherited my obesity and would be overweight in her teenage years. I very much doubt that some ideal weight characters would hold much appeal.




I've known obese male and female players, none of them ever had any interest in playing obese PCs.  A PC may be an idealised self, or completely different, but most people play RPGs for escapism, not to replicate their own problems.   I don't get the impression that female players have a problem with idealised depictions of female form in RPG art.  Some don't like male-gaze sexualised depictions, which is a different issue.


----------



## S'mon

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But is it true that women don#t enjoy these power fantasies, too? Is making a general assumption on this not potentially sexist?




Many do enjoy them - my wife, for instance.  She'll happily hack through a high level Neverwinter Nights module*.  Conversely, my mother in law is of the opinion that women are inherently peaceful and mild, if they were in charge they would never start wars, etc.  Both strands are common in feminist thought - "women are just like men" and "women are better/more peaceful than men".   Neither is wholly true - that's the problem with generalisations.  But it _less common_ for women to enjoy fantasies of violence and power.

For all that,lots of women clearly do play and enjoy D&D, including hack & slash D&D.  IME the RPG genre least attractive to female gamers is crunch heavy military sf like Traveller, especially _Traveller: The New Era_.

*She still has a strong interest in designing the fashion of the clothes her PC wears, though.


----------



## shilsen

ajanders said:


> Shilsen, the answer is simple.
> 
> You and your girlfriend will just have to start running a D&D "Arcane Female" campaign.
> 
> All characters are female and use the arcane power source. Any race applies.
> Monsters must be either flammable or fit inside a tendriculos.
> 
> I'll look for the Story Hour.




I'll assume you're being facetious here. And nobody, not even me, would suggest that a campaign should be all Luna all the time. That way lies madness.



> Seriously.
> 
> The sexism you're decrying is not part of the D&D rules: it's part of the D&D setting and players.




Proserpine's already commented on the above, so I'll just say that's precisely what my original post is about. I just think that can change and is slowly changing, a setting like Eberron being a case in point.



Doug McCrae said:


> I think Shilsen's call for more equal numbers of male and female NPCs and non-sexist art is quite reasonable because it would be easy to change and I doubt any male customers would be lost as a result.




Thanks. That's basically what I think, and while I figure a little loss of the existing fanbase in the short term is acceptable for a long term improvement, I don't think that really needs to happen. Hell, look at the way things are shaken up every time a new edition comes out. A more equitable form of the game is hardly as player-shaking as 3.5e or 4e was, and can be done easily enough. 



> As an example, I'm a big fan of the Eberron setting and until Shilsen mentioned it I hadn't even noticed it had more balanced gender representation. That shows nothing is being lost, at least for me.




I've had more than a few people comment on that before, face to face and on forums. I think Eberron very explicitly moving away from the faux-medieval setting approach was very helpful to that end. 



> That said I think D&D has some intrinsic features which means even if those changes are made it will never appeal to women anything like as much as men. For the same reason action movies and shoot-em-up videogames are more popular with men while romcoms and Harlequin novels are more popular with women.




That's a possibility, but I think it's possible it could be made to appeal more - or be less exclusionary - than it does now.



Mallus said:


> Heh... that's because you're not the guy who has to create a whole bunch of new, and hopefully well-characterized female NPC's for shil's campaign.






No pressure. 



> At least I'll have help .




I presume you're referring to Rolzup, but I'll obviously chip in there. And had started doing so in-game well before this thread, actually. It's just that you two do way more interesting NPCs than me.


----------



## Proserpine

Doug McCrae said:


> I think Shilsen's call for more equal numbers of male and female NPCs and non-sexist art is quite reasonable because it would be easy to change and I doubt any male customers would be lost as a result. As an example, I'm a big fan of the Eberron setting and until Shilsen mentioned it I hadn't even noticed it had more balanced gender representation. That shows nothing is being lost, at least for me.




I talked with Shilsen a lot about that. He used BSG as an example of gender equality in media, which essentially plays a similar trick on a largely male audience: they don't really notice the balanced gender representation, and if they do, it's not a negative thing to (most) of them. As you said, I really feel like nothing is being lost.



> Vampire demonstrates it's possible to have pictures of attractive, sexy women in an rpg without being sexist.




Right. Women want their fantasy characters to look cool too, and not see artwork that assumes females are for the consumption of men. When it's no longer one-sided sexual objectification, sexism is not a problem.



> While I do like the bare midriff on the PHB 4 cover, mostly because it's so contemporary (like the 70s moustaches in 1e art which seem so dated now), showing cleavage, midriff and thigh is going a bit far.




The artwork for 4e isn't too bad. Bare midriffs aren't very contemporary for adult women living in 2009, though. If they were being presented in a contemporary way, they'd all be in tunics or dresses with a pair of leggings. Also, like many other proud and ardent feminists, I don't mind cool, sexy looking women - as long as it's tasteful. Cleavage, midriff, and thigh showing can be cool, but usually that stuff is drawn to titilate men instead. And this kind of goes back to what you originally said. I think guys and women want GOOD artwork, and probably wouldn't felt that they lost anything if the women were less "sexy" and more cool looking.



> That said I think D&D has some intrinsic features which means even if those changes are made it will never appeal to women anything like as much as men. For the same reason action movies and shoot-em-up videogames are more popular with men while romcoms and Harlequin novels are more popular with women.




This is kinda a boys are blue, girls are pink type argument. If that was true, then the numbers of women playing videogames wouldn't be consistently rising. And while action movies are marketed towards guys, I've consistently seen lots of women in attendance (if not in equal numbers, then very close). Also, romcoms? Have you watched any Judd Apatow movies? And all the movies that have come out recently that are in the same vein? It's all about the bromance, but with male/female relationships also being an important part of the storyline. I think those movies are tripe, but I also don't like romcoms period.

Anyway, to get back on topic, what I mentioned is somewhat decent evidence (well, in my opinion - you can disagree) that "instrinsic" is a really bad word to use here. What is common for the genders is pretty fluid and heavily influenced by society.


----------



## S'mon

Ariosto said:


> The sexual *stereotype* above is inherently sexist -- albeit actually reflective of broad demographics...




Reality is sexist?  I thought only people could be sexist (or racist etc), not facts.  It doesn't seem like a good idea to call facts a loaded word like sexist, anyway.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Mathew_Freeman said:


> _If you are male, then it is not possible for you to make a valid judgement on whether or not there is or is not a problem with sexism in gaming. You cannot experience the same sort of discrimination as women, as you are not one._
> 
> I appreciate that the second statement there is going to provoke some comments. I'm happy to discuss this view.




Simply put, this statement is patently false. If you extend this even to obvious levels: racist, political, religious, income level, upbringing, criminal record, etc, you are saying no one can understand anyone else. 

It is not necessary to experience something to realize that it is happening, and draw deductions about how it affects people. If so, we had best stop studying history, psychology, sociology etc as we are all such unique snowflakes that no one can understand each other, in your view.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Mathew_Freeman said:


> _If you are male, then it is not possible for you to make a valid judgement on whether or not there is or is not a problem with sexism in gaming. You cannot experience the same sort of discrimination as women, as you are not one._
> 
> I appreciate that the second statement there is going to provoke some comments. I'm happy to discuss this view.




Simply put, this statement is patently false. If you extend this even to obvious levels: racist, political, religious, income level, upbringing, criminal record, etc, you are saying no one can understand anyone else. 

It is not necessary to experience something to realize that it is happening, and draw deductions about how it affects people. If the statement above were true, we had best stop studying history, psychology, sociology etc as we are all such unique snowflakes that no one can understand each other, in your view.


----------



## Ariosto

S'mon said:


> Reality is sexist?  I thought only people could be sexist (or racist etc), not facts.  It doesn't seem like a good idea to call facts a loaded word like sexist, anyway.



There is a difference between fact and inference, coincidence and causation, and other things often confused (sometimes willfully) in rhetorical representations of reality.


----------



## S'mon

Proserpine said:


> ...I also don't like romcoms...




But you were born a man, right?


----------



## Cadfan

Proserpine said:


> This is kinda a boys are blue, girls are pink type argument. If that was true, then the numbers of women playing videogames wouldn't be consistently rising.



Not strictly true.  There could be a "natural" rate of women playing video games that's higher than we are now, but which is still below 50%.  Or there could be a shift due to a shift in video game publications (say, less Halo XII and more Wii Sports).  Or any number of other things.

I do think that there's a difference in the rates at which men and women like things like action movies filled with explosions and whatnot.  I don't view that as any more unreasonable a thing to say than that there is probably a difference in the rate at which boys and girls like stories about ponies.  (I know that there's a whole culture v innate traits issue here, I'm not really interested in getting into it since its not relevant at the moment.)


----------



## Proserpine

S'mon said:


> But you were born a man, right?




Nope. Born with and still in possession of my lady parts.


----------



## S'mon

Proserpine said:


> Nope. Born with and still in possession of my lady parts.




Oh, I thought you said upthread you were transsexual/cross-gendered or some such.


----------



## Proserpine

Cadfan said:


> Not strictly true.  There could be a "natural" rate of women playing video games that's higher than we are now, but which is still below 50%.  Or there could be a shift due to a shift in video game publications (say, less Halo XII and more Wii Sports).  Or any number of other things.
> 
> I do think that there's a difference in the rates at which men and women like things like action movies filled with explosions and whatnot.  I don't view that as any more unreasonable a thing to say than that there is probably a difference in the rate at which boys and girls like stories about ponies.  (I know that there's a whole culture v innate traits issue here, I'm not really interested in getting into it since its not relevant at the moment.)




You are right that it's not strictly true, but I think the change in society (as in, we're less sexist) is a major reason why female participation has been increasing over time.

I think culture vs. innate traits is relevant, so my take on this is influenced by that. As the lovely Jewel put it, "what we call human nature in actuality is human habit"! But yeah, that's just my opinion.


----------



## roguerouge

Mathew_Freeman said:


> I need to my hands up and confess to being tired and to making a mistake with my post, for which I apologise.
> 
> roguerouge, you sound like you have a great job, and I've clearly riled you. I hope you can accept that it wasn't my intention, and that I've written unclearly.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> Matt.




XP for you. And, well, grading papers sucks, so that might have been a part of it. That and I've done debate, so I tend to put things in their most forceful manner.


----------



## roguerouge

S'mon said:


> Isn't a game about killing things, taking their stuff, and getting more powerful (better at killing things) a game that caters to male power fantasies, and thus inherently sexist?  Some women enjoy those male power fantasies of killing and looting themselves, but most don't, and thus are inherently excluded.




This is what I was trying to get at with my question about how "butch" or "tomboy" DnD is in its standard game play assumptions. I'm a tentative yes on this issue, with the caveat that obviously you can use the system to play Diplomacy and Demagogues.


----------



## Lwaxy

Doug McCrae said:


> D&D isn't Call of Cthulhu. It's not Vampire. Both appeal a lot more strongly to women, imo.




I just noticed this comment now. I see a lot more female players into Vampire than males, mostly for the LARPs. But for Cthulhu - nope  I only have one female player there, plus one occasionally playing a bit if her friend pushes her. Couldn't find much interest among females on the game fair either. Around here, CoC is an almost exclusively male thing. I wonder why this is.


----------



## Umbran

Proserpine said:


> Right. Women want their fantasy characters to look cool too, and not see artwork that assumes females are for the consumption of men. When it's no longer one-sided sexual objectification, sexism is not a problem.




This brings us to one of the complications on the subject of artwork.  Last time I was in a discussion of this topic with a bunch of people in-person, one of them piped up to note that she was a lesbian, and how dare we assume that she *didn't* want to see women as sex objects.  Another woman chimed in to note that if we were going to have sexy art, she also preferred looking at females, simply because she felt they were prettier, even though she was heterosexual herself, and again, *assuming* what she'd want to see was offensive.

So, you know, the matter of art really isn't all that simple.  Some others will say that any "sexy" portrayal, even if there isn't a lot of skin (like, in the often mentioned White Wolf books), makes the pictured individual into a sex object, and showing women so is thus sexist...

Basically, we run into the issue that what people view as sexy/sexist appropriate/inappropriate is not simple at all.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

I did not read the whole thread but did look at the OP and the commentary on the first page and got an idea of where this was going (the same direction most threads on this subject tend to go) but a couple things stood out to me. I am not sure if any of my comments below were brought up but here is my take on a couple of call outs made by the OP with respect to marketing and the product itself.

*Marketing)* in the past the marketing as been targeted to males and featured male models in the advertisements etc... This was because D&D has been (and still is) a game predominately played by boys & men. Many data points indicate this is true including RPGA registration, community profiles (forums etc) and Market research. Research aside, our personal experiences have been somewhat different. We know females play D&D. We see this at game day events, we see this at Cons, we see it in our own games. So where are the female gamers and how do we reach them? Every survey I have seen shows the game is played by 95-99% males. Now you can get a false positive on the premise that D&D is game played by males by only surveying males but even in research that does not pre-screen for gender we either can't get a big enough sample of females to be relevant or the data supports the 1-5% female audience size. On the marketing front we have decide to not look at research, go with our guts, and concentrate more marketing at female gamers (and prospective gamers). We do PR outreach with media like Cerise Magazine. Although we have not used live models in an advertisement for several years, going forward when we do real people (vs artwork) it will include at least one female. In fact last year we went through a significant casting process to find suitable female models for use in advertising.

*Products & Product Development) *Over the years there have been some very notable women that have contributed to the success of the D&D brand including (but not limited to) Laura Hickman, Margaret Weis, Michele Carter, Jennifer Clarke Wilkes, Julia Martin, Gwendolyn Kestrel, Jean Rabe, & Elaine Cunningham.  The current D&D brand team is made up of 8 people, of which three are men (myself included). The VP of Wizards Brand & Marketing (my Grand- Boss) is also a woman. There are many people who work on a book throughout all aspects of the product development process, and a lot of those people happen to be women. I know this sounds a lot like , "I am not a ____ some of my best friends are____" but I just don't see us putting out an inherently sexist product.  There are too many women (and men) on the watch for this to happen. 

I don't buy the idea that D&D is inherently sexist. Fantasy as a whole has certain tropes that are sexist (EG damsel in distress saved by strapping barbarian) but we go a long way to portray heroic female characters as strong, independent,  intelligent, without always pandering to the strong = butch stereotype. The D&D art style in both 3rd and 4th edition has made great strides to move beyond many of the old sexist tropes of fantasy while still maintaining femininity and masculinity where appropriate. Text is written in mixed gender pronouns (his shield or her sword) or gender neutral (their armor). NPCs are a mix of male and female characters as are their depictions in artwork.  For example in the yet to be released Eberron Player's Guide on my desk there are 52 pieces of art featuring at least one humanoid. Of those 52 pieces of art, 26 feature at least one female character sometimes in a mixed group and sometimes alone. one note about this book is that it has a number of pieces of warforged art (warforged don't have a gender) depictions so the art is likely greater closer to 50/50. It is my gut that if you did this tally among all 4e books you'd see similar ratios in character depection.

 For these reasons among others I just don't buy the OPs premise.


----------



## Bumbles

shilsen said:


> Thanks. That's basically what I think, and while I figure a little loss of the existing fanbase in the short term is acceptable for a long term improvement, I don't think that really needs to happen. Hell, look at the way things are shaken up every time a new edition comes out. A more equitable form of the game is hardly as player-shaking as 3.5e or 4e was, and can be done easily enough.




So perhaps a little commentary on what changes have occurred?   I actually looked at the core books recently myself, those I have anyway, and the worst example I saw was in the 2nd edition PHB on the page or 7th level Wizard spells....but there was other art which wasn't quite so gratuitous (like the dragon slaying page in the front of the book), and 3e especially struck me as an attempt to be inclusive.


----------



## roguerouge

Lwaxy said:


> I'm sure that more girls will have fun with this than get depressed over it, mainly because I cannot see an obese, self conscious girl try this out, or the teenager with the think hair that never looks right (or maybe that is a reason to be depressed as well). I still think the concept has not been thought through to the end. but then, it is based on a book and didn't have that much space to adapt, I guess.




Let's start here. We've got some commonalities between our differing positions. I do think that people will try this game, Witch Girl, out and have fun. As an RPG, I think that it allows MORE room to try out what it feels like to be disenfranchised due one's appearance than popular fiction or films. But I do agree with you that some illustration alterations are in order to facilitate that.  

I raised the paganism angle for two reasons: one, I know one of the people at that site rather well professionally and I was confident that the publisher would learn a thing or two from someone politically active in that community who wouldn't reject the concept out of hand. (And we're past the stage of rejecting it out of hand.) Two, increasing traffic from a culture might be good business for the publisher and that was one of the thread's purposes. I thought if they got some guidance from the community, it had to be better than the alternative. 

My concern about the lack of evidence was basically because you and I were having foundational disagreements. I do believe that femme gaming CAN be a legitimate form of play, just as butch gaming can be.  So, I was looking for you to provide examples of what was setting you off outside of the art direction and the genre. Since you regard it as stereotyping rather than a subset of gender performance, I can now see why you would not feel like this kind of evidence was necessary. I don't agree with you on that, but I at least see where you are coming from. 

I think you and I are never going to agree on the validity of gender-separate activities. I think that there's something virtuous about a game that deliberately markets to women in an industry that's so male-dominated (4/5 gamers are men, according to one market survey). I think it's a necessary intermediary step towards parity. You disagree. I believe that you think that I'm being separatist and defeatist because I don't really care about including men who don't gender-bend in their gaming. * That's an issue on which reasonable people can agree. * 

Given that assumption, I'd prefer it if you didn't do this to me or others in the future:



Lwaxy said:


> Now you keep going on about "not presenting evidence." You should probably have read my posts better then. Do I need to post EVIDENCE in front of it all? Not that it would help much because you'd likely ignore it as not important.




 It tends to make for a self-fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## rgard

S'mon said:


> Oh, I thought you said upthread you were transsexual/cross-gendered or some such.





I think you read 'cisgender' in one of Proserpine's posts.  I found it on Wikipedia:

Cisgender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Cisgender (IPA: /ˈsɪsdʒɛndə˞/) is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual's gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex.[1] Cisgender is a "newer term" that means "someone who is comfortable in the gender they were assigned at birth."[2] "Cisgender" is used to contrast "transgender" on the gender spectrum.]

My thanks to Proserpine as her post and your response prompted me to look this up...and I learned something!

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## roguerouge

Scott_Rouse said:


> Every survey I have seen shows the game is played by 95-99% males. Now you can get a false positive on the premise that D&D is game played by males by only surveying males but even in research that does not pre-screen for gender we either can't get a big enough sample of females to be relevant or the data supports the 1-5% female audience size.




Is this a guess or a fact? Is this for 4e only? Sean K Reynolds posted to his web site WotC material pegging 3e's ratio at 4 men for every girl that plays. 

Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0 -- Wizards of the Coast


----------



## pawsplay

resistor said:


> I think the key phrase in your assertion is "the pursuits of white men."  I'm going to hypothesize a bit here, but I do not believe that there is a single person in the world the entirety of whose identity is "white man."  All those people you refer to as "white men" are American, or English, or Scottish, etc.  Or maybe they identify by creed, or by profession, or by region of birth.
> 
> My issue with the concept of a unitary group of "white men" is that it implies that they are the default majority on everything, when for any particular is not.  Every person is made up of so many different identity elements that the fraction of people who hold the majority identity on every single one is vanishingly small.
> 
> Who gets to decide which "heritages" are important enough to get months, and which aren't?




Let me put it this way. If you are black, you do not get to choose if your ethnic heritage is considered important by other people.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

pawsplay said:


> Let me put it this way. If you are black, you do not get to choose if your ethnic heritage is considered important by other people.




At least, not in America.

(Black- actually multiracial, but _called_ black in *most *states- Catholic dude.)


----------



## roguerouge

Korgoth said:


> In our gaming group, everyone must come attired in an androgynous jumpsuit and address fellow players with the gender-neutral term "comrade". Characters may not use swords, spears or other oppressive phallocentric weapons. When making an attack, the sexist paleo-linguistic artifact-phrase "I thrust..." must be replaced with "I unfairly subjugate...".
> 
> All sexist pictures in our books have had beefcake pictures pasted over them. From a reactionaly-bourgeoise perspective that may sound like a form of "sexism" to you, but remember that the dynamics of superexploitative cultural products require a dyad of "oppressor-oppressed". Therefore it is impossible for beefcake art to actually be sexist. Rather, its existence reverses and overthrows the tyranny of exploitative "cheesecake" art. Fortunately no one at the table enjoys looking at the beefcake pictures, so it helps us keep our minds on the advancement of the revolution through proper gaming.
> 
> Dialectical materialism has allowed us to _scientifically prove_ the superiority of our method. History is on our side, Larry Elmore... we will bury you!




Okay, now THAT'S funny. I'm pretty much on the comrade side myself (if not on this thread, then at Paizo's boards), and I find that to be well-crafted parody. 

Good work. XP for you.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

shilsen said:


> Same here. And I'm not just saying that because 5 ft 4 inch tall Indian men lget no love in fantasy art



But Bollywood totally has your back, dude.

Pop culture says you have a superpower for improvised dance numbers, and anyone who has seen "Enchanted" knows that is AWESOME.



Lwaxy said:


> Yeah true. However, girls ARE more sensitive about their appearance. I'm not sure if this is only due to the media, but it certainly plays a part.



I think that's a pretty interesting generalization, too, and like most generalizations, it fails HARD in a number of places.

For example, it doesn't hold water at all at young ages.  They won't admit it, but teenage boys are massively preoccupied with their "look."  The more they are, the more they refuse to admit it, even 30 years later.  "I just wore whatever" is man-code for "I had a very specific and narrow set of things I felt comfortable wearing because of my weight/social group/parental rebellion issues, but they were sufficiently loose/grunge-ish/typical/etc that I could pretend I didn't care and people were kind/unobservant enough not to call me on it too often."

Seriously.... you want an angry, embarrassed young man?  Accuse him of caring about his hair.  You don't turn purple and start choking on your own tongue unless someone touched a nerve.  I am an *evil* man, and I torture my second cousins with this regularly.  I cannot wait until my nephews are old enough to be in the same boat.

For example, uncombed hair or rumpled shirts are not always examples of slovenliness.  HOURS were spent achieving those presentations (a telltale sign i when they smell springtime fresh and just LOOK lived in).  But boys will not admit that for two reasons.  First, admitting effort kills the whole point of apparent lack of effort.  Second, effort into appearance is "feminine" or "gay."  And there is nothing more terrifying to most young American males than those labels.

Actually..... even old American males will go VERY far out of their way to appear antithetical to those labels.  They will lie until they believe it in order to have plausible deniability.

IME, women are more concerned about aging, and therefore they do tend to overtake men on appearance sensitivity pretty early on.  But there is no one on earth more concerned about how he looks than an immediately post-pubescent male.

I now open the floor for dozens of guys to insist they really, really didn't care. 

In any case, I've also seen a lot more men than women obsess _unto death_ over their miniature for a game.  But that might just be the male propensity for being visually-oriented rocking head-on into geekly analness.... but it's still sensitivity about the appearance of their imaginary "self."


----------



## shilsen

S'mon said:


> Oh, I thought you said upthread you were transsexual/cross-gendered or some such.




Ack! I was just telling Proserpine a little while ago that I thought you were being facetious in your comment 



Proserpine said:


> I think culture vs. innate traits is relevant, so my take on this is influenced by that. As the lovely Jewel put it, "what we call human nature in actuality is human habit"! But yeah, that's just my opinion.




Hey - I thought I said that what people think is human nature is mostly just human habit! Though probably not as melodiously as Jewel (who rocketh greatly, BTW).



Umbran said:


> This brings us to one of the complications on the subject of artwork.
> 
> ...
> 
> Basically, we run into the issue that what people view as sexy/sexist appropriate/inappropriate is not simple at all.




Agreed. I don't think any (or most) of us are trying to make the point that this is a simple issue. I certainly am not, and if I gave the impression that I was saying that my take on sexism is the only objective way to look at it, I didn't intend to. I do think, despite (and sometimes because of) the complexities of the subject, it's worthwhile to discuss and we can have intelligent discourse about it, even among people who have very divergent positions. Hence this thread. 



Scott_Rouse said:


> I did not read the whole thread but did look at the OP and the commentary on the first page and got an idea of where this was going (the same direction most threads on this subject tend to go) but a couple things stood out to me. I am not sure if any of my comments below were brought up but here is my take on a couple of call outs made by the OP with respect to marketing and the product itself.
> 
> ...




Hah! I was just thinking a few hours ago that it would be interesting if someone from WotC popped in to comment in this thread, and I was specifically thinking about you since I've noticed you post often on ENWorld earlier.



> For these reasons among others I just don't buy the OPs premise.




Thanks for the detailed information and the opinion, Scott. I may quibble about a couple of the things you mentioned, but I should also note that my premise in the original post has been both expanded and modified over the course of this discussion. I'd say now that I don't think D&D as currently produced by WotC is inherently sexist, but I do think it caters more to men in a way which can (not always, and sometimes much more subtly than at others) be exclusionary towards women. The sexism which I still see in the D&D community, I think, has more to do with some of the people who make it up and some of the (often unexamined) assumptions which result from the much-less-egalitarian history of the game. 



roguerouge said:


> I think you and I are never going to agree on the validity of gender-separate activities. I think that there's something virtuous about a game that deliberately markets to women in an industry that's so male-dominated (4/5 gamers are men, according to one market survey). I think it's a necessary intermediary step towards parity.




For what it's worth, I agree. I do, of course, think that some ways of doing it are much better than others, but then that's probably a given. 



rgard said:


> [Cisgender (IPA: /ˈsɪsdʒɛndə˞/) is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual's gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex.[1] Cisgender is a "newer term" that means "someone who is comfortable in the gender they were assigned at birth."[2] "Cisgender" is used to contrast "transgender" on the gender spectrum.]
> 
> My thanks to Proserpine as her post and your response prompted me to look this up...and I learned something!




Cool. I'm hoping that this thread at least gets people to think a little more about the subject (or subjects, since we're discussing many interrelated things here) of gender and sexism than might normally be the case. I only learned the term cisgender a few months ago myself, also from Proserpine. Who happens to be the girlfriend I mentioned in the original post. And is, in the interests of full disclosure, way too much of a hack-and-slasher and far too little interested in actually roleplaying 



roguerouge said:


> Is this a guess or a fact? Is this for 4e only? Sean K Reynolds posted to his web site WotC material pegging 3e's ratio at 4 men for every girl that plays.
> 
> Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0 -- Wizards of the Coast




That's a question I had too. I know the proportion of women playing D&D is substantially lower than men, but I wouldn't expect it to be as low as 1-5%, as Scott said.


----------



## Scott_Rouse

roguerouge said:


> Is this a guess or a fact? Is this for 4e only? Sean K Reynolds posted to his web site WotC material pegging 3e's ratio at 4 men for every girl that plays.
> 
> Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0 -- Wizards of the Coast




It is market research, there is no fact. Every study or other piece of research I have seen that attempts to define the D&D audience pegs it at 95-99% male. Sometimes these studies pre-screen for demographics (like males age 12-45) and others are open (fill out this survey).  In any case they all seem to come back a this ratio (sometimes for the obvious reason mentioned). 

My gut tells me the real ratio is more like 80% males which is supported by the study linked (although that study may have some other underlying issues beyond being 10 years old).


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Scott_Rouse said:


> It is market research, there is no fact. Every study or other piece of research I have seen that attempts to define the D&D audience pegs it at 95-99% male. Sometimes these studies pre-screen for demographics (like males age 12-45) and others are open (fill out this survey).  In any case they all seem to come back a this ratio (sometimes for the obvious reason mentioned).
> 
> My gut tells me the real ratio is more like 80% males which is supported by the study linked (although that study may have some other underlying issues beyond being 10 years old).



The second part of the selection process probably introduced a HUGE self-selection bias.  Not a surprise that would inflate maleness in the population in question.


----------



## shilsen

Canis said:


> But Bollywood totally has your back, dude.
> 
> Pop culture says you have a superpower for improvised dance numbers, and anyone who has seen "Enchanted" knows that is AWESOME.






Don't forget the Quick Change ability to change costumes at the drop of a hat and the Teleport (Flaw: Only to scenic locations with music in background) power. My M&M group keeps joking that we'll run a Bollywood-themed campaign someday where every PC will have those abilities.



> For example, it doesn't hold water at all at young ages.  They won't admit it, but teenage boys are massively preoccupied with their "look."  The more they are, the more they refuse to admit it, even 30 years later.  "I just wore whatever" is man-code for "I had a very specific and narrow set of things I felt comfortable wearing because of my weight/social group/parental rebellion issues, but they were sufficiently loose/grunge-ish/typical/etc that I could pretend I didn't care and people were kind/unobservant enough not to call me on it too often."




Hah! Nice point.



> I now open the floor for dozens of guys to insist they really, really didn't care.




You called ? If it helps, Proserpine can vouch for the fact that I fundamentally don't give a damn and she regularly has to bug me to change when I reach into the closet and pick up the first shirt and pant I find, blissfully uncaring of the stains on them.

But, more seriously, I don't think this has anything to do with me being male. It has to do with me being, well, me.



> In any case, I've also seen a lot more men than women obsess _unto death_ over their miniature for a game.  But that might just be the male propensity for being visually-oriented rocking head-on into geekly analness.... but it's still sensitivity about the appearance of their imaginary "self."




I think I've seen more men do the above than women, but then again I've played with more men than women, so I personally wouldn't call it a trend. But it is amusing


----------



## NewJeffCT

Scott_Rouse said:


> I don't buy the idea that D&D is inherently sexist. Fantasy as a whole has certain tropes that are sexist (EG damsel in distress saved by strapping barbarian) but we go a long way to portray heroic female characters as strong, independent,  intelligent, without always pandering to the strong = butch stereotype. The D&D art style in both 3rd and 4th edition has made great strides to move beyond many of the old sexist tropes of fantasy while still maintaining femininity and masculinity where appropriate. Text is written in mixed gender pronouns (his shield or her sword) or gender neutral (their armor). NPCs are a mix of male and female characters as are their depictions in artwork.  For example in the yet to be released Eberron Player's Guide on my desk there are 52 pieces of art featuring at least one humanoid. Of those 52 pieces of art, 26 feature at least one female character sometimes in a mixed group and sometimes alone. one note about this book is that it has a number of pieces of warforged art (warforged don't have a gender) depictions so the art is likely greater closer to 50/50. It is my gut that if you did this tally among all 4e books you'd see similar ratios in character depection.
> 
> For these reasons among others I just don't buy the OPs premise.




I think the OP, and others, have agreed that the rules themselves are not particularly sexist.  

However, a few of us have made the point that there are far more male D&D miniatures available than female, and those are also WotC products. One poster made the point that there were about 30 different giant figures made, and only like 3 were female (I won't scroll back through 200 posts to find the exact numbers).  I had mentioned that I had a new (female) player joining my gaming group that had decided she wanted to play a goliath barbarian.  Yes, she wanted to play a female character. So, I went out to search eBay, and other online places, for a female goliath figure as I like accuracy.  There are none, though there are three male goliath figures.  Goliaths were featured in the 3.5E book "Races of Stone" and the 4E PHB2, so are not that new of a race.  

I then started looking at other manufacturers for human female barbarian minis, hoping to find something in the 35-40mm scale range, so the miniature would be appropriately "goliath" sized.  However, most of the Confrontation female figures that are tall enough were more like metal bikini clad supermodels than an athletic/strong & tall woman... so, I ended up settling on this one because its supposed to be taller than the normal Reaper figure:  CoolMiniOrNot Store > Alejandra

I will say, however, that the D&D miniatures that are female are generally pretty well done in terms of being appropriately armed and armored (sorry, an experienced warrior isn't going to leave her midriff bare and unarmored... do female soldiers in combat situations like Iraq or Afghanistan cut holes into their body armor to expose their stomachs, or have them specially designed that way?)


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

shilsen said:


> You called ? If it helps, Proserpine can vouch for the fact that I fundamentally don't give a damn and she regularly has to bug me to change when I reach into the closet and pick up the first shirt and pant I find, blissfully uncaring of the stains on them.



But, were you actually as uncaring at age 12?  Past tense was relevant there 

I care MUCH less than I did then, as well, but the appearance of not caring has been nearly static throughout my life.


----------



## Oni

shilsen said:


> One of the many reasons why Eberron sticks out positively to me as a setting is (as noted in the thread above) because it explicitly eschews sexism. While I think a particular group or homebrew setting can choose to involve sexism in their games (presumably with everyone involved on board about it), I absolutely believe that the core rules and settings of D&D should be egalitarian.





This caught my eye in the original post and at the risk of putting my foot in it I wanted to say something.  

I have a serious problem with the sterilization of creative endeavors for the promotion of social values over the integrity of the work.  If the world is egalitarian great let it be so, but if it's not don't force it to be so.  Now I understand that this might be kind of an extreme stance to take with regard to campaign settings, it's a game right?  But how interesting is fantasy world after fantasy world were everyone's equal and no one treats you different because of the way you look, unless of course you happen to be green.  Besides where does this kind of things stop?


----------



## tallyrand

Just checking in to see if the Brain Trust has solved this in the first ten or so pages...









...I'll give you another ten.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> For example, it doesn't hold water at all at young ages. They won't admit it, but teenage boys are massively preoccupied with their "look." The more they are, the more they refuse to admit it, even 30 years later. "I just wore whatever" is man-code for "I had a very specific and narrow set of things I felt comfortable wearing because of my weight/social group/parental rebellion issues, but they were sufficiently loose/grunge-ish/typical/etc that I could pretend I didn't care and people were kind/unobservant enough not to call me on it too often."




OTOH, if you look at _serious_ body/image issues- bulimia, anorexia, etc.- young ladies historically predominate the number of people in treatment.

However, the more "wired" the society becomes, the more the boys start sharing those problems.


----------



## Bumbles

Canis said:


> But, were you actually as uncaring at age 12?  Past tense was relevant there




I know I was!  I am also uncaring today.  I do find the people who do care offensive.  I don't tell *you* to get a hair cut, now do I?   And don't even get me started on the folks who will do things like reach for your neck to straighten your collar.  One day some old lady is going to do that and get a hip broken for their trouble.


----------



## Mallus

Oni said:


> I have a serious problem with the sterilization of creative endeavors for the promotion of social values over the integrity of the work.



That's not something shil's advocating. He's talking about the unintentional expression of sexist attitudes.

For example, shilsen is currently running a setting I co-wrote. I can certainly speak authoritatively about the 'integrity' of that particular work. I was more than a little surprised to hear that the vast majority of interesting NPC's in the setting were men. It shouldn't surprise me, it's what my friend John and I wrote. 

That's a kind of inadvertent, but very real sexism. Our unstated default assumption was that the authority figures and men of action, should be, in fact, men. It wasn't intentional. I wasn't trying for a certain level of historicity, I wasn't trying to make a point.

And I ended up making a one. One I don't particularly like.

I've written more egalitarian settings in the past. Heck, my last one, which was partly a parody of swords and sorcery conventions, complete with deliberate sexism and racism had stronger female NPC's. What gets my goat is that in the setting where I didn't think about gender roles, in automatically made the world about guys (in a manner of speaking). 

It's not quite that plain... but it's plain enough to get me thinking.


----------



## Spatula

Canis said:


> I think that's a pretty interesting generalization, too, and like most generalizations, it fails HARD in a number of places.
> 
> For example, it doesn't hold water at all at young ages.  They won't admit it, but teenage boys are massively preoccupied with their "look."  The more they are, the more they refuse to admit it, even 30 years later.



Of course males care how they look and are perceived by their peers.  All humans do (to varying degrees, based on the individual).  How many of your male cousins are anorexic?  Bulimic?  Perhaps, as sensitive as you find them to be, they are still generally less so than their female peers.


----------



## Bumbles

Mallus said:


> That's not something shil's advocating. He's taling about the unintentional expression of sexist attitudes.




And I believe Oni was referring to an unintentional consequence that might occur when attempting to deal with that.

At least, that's how I read it.


----------



## Mallus

Bumbles said:


> And I believe Oni was referring to an unintentional consequence that might occur when attempting to deal with that.
> 
> At least, that's how I read it.



Sure. If gender issues are important to a setting, let them be important. My point was they weren't intended to be in mine.


----------



## Campbell

Spatula said:


> Of course males care how they look and are perceived by their peers.  All humans do (to varying degrees, based on the individual).  How many of your male cousins are anorexic?  Bulimic?  Perhaps, as sensitive as you find them to be, they are still generally less so than their female peers.




That's a faulty basis of comparison because males experience appearance oversensitivity in different ways than females. Dudes aren't supposed to be waifs, they're supposed to be strong and athletic so they don't stop eating - they become obsessed with working out. How many dudes have you met that spend 3-4 hrs a day working out when its not related to their jobs?


----------



## Oni

Mallus said:


> That's not something shil's advocating. He's talking about the unintentional expression of sexist attitudes.
> 
> For example, shilsen is currently running a setting I co-wrote. I can certainly speak authoritatively about the 'integrity' of that particular work. I was more than a little surprised to hear that the vast majority of interesting NPC's in the setting were men. It shouldn't surprise me, it's what my friend John and I wrote.
> 
> That's a kind of inadvertent, but very real sexism. Our unstated default assumption was that the authority figures and men of action, should be, in fact, men. It wasn't intentional. I wasn't trying for a certain level of historicity, I wasn't trying to make a point.
> 
> And I ended up making a one. One I don't particularly like.
> 
> I've written more egalitarian settings in the past. Heck, my last one, which was partly a parody of swords and sorcery conventions, complete with deliberate sexism and racism had stronger female NPC's. What gets my goat is that in the setting where I didn't think about gender roles, in automatically made the world about guys (in a manner of speaking).
> 
> It's not quite that plain... but it's plain enough to get me thinking.





The bit I quoted was the specific and only part of his post I was replying to.  If you read it as I did, the implication that the creative exploration of certain topics is fit only to hidden away from the light of day, and something that shouldn't be allowed to be published as a campaign setting.  

Regarding any creative work though it is the creator's responsibility to be mindful of what they are creating, to exercise control over the creative process.  You can tell when thought has been put into to something rather than just doing what comes easiest and most natural, falling back into the comfort zone.  I would venture a guess that the majority of the described sexism in regards to campaign settings and the gender counts has more to do with laziness and failure to leave the comfort zone than any kind of subconscious misogynistic tendencies on the parts of the writers.


----------



## Proserpine

shilsen said:


> Cool. I'm hoping that this thread at least gets people to think a little more about the subject (or subjects, since we're discussing many interrelated things here) of gender and sexism than might normally be the case. I only learned the term cisgender a few months ago myself, also from Proserpine.




You're welcome, Rgard. I'm really glad you took the time to look it up! And that you took some time to post the definition, as I should've mentioned what that meant. 

In regards to shilsen, I agree with him. (Even if he's outed me as a hack and slash type of girl. ) Though a lot of people here have respectfully disagreed with shilsen's premise, they're taking some time out to think about the subject.



			
				Oni said:
			
		

> I have a serious problem with the sterilization of creative endeavors for the promotion of social values over the integrity of the work. If the world is egalitarian great let it be so, but if it's not don't force it to be so. Now I understand that this might be kind of an extreme stance to take with regard to campaign settings, it's a game right? But how interesting is fantasy world after fantasy world were everyone's equal and no one treats you different because of the way you look, unless of course you happen to be green. Besides where does this kind of things stop?




_In a world with magic and multiple intelligent species, gender would work differently_. For real. And that's something a lot of people don't seem to consider. This, more than anything, bugs me. Why would an entire world be sexist when there are multiple intelligent species and magic? That changes the dynamic a lot, and retaining sexism (especially since it's always "benign" sexism against womem) has more to do with a long tradition of sexism and exclusion in real life. 

And personally, when I play a game, I don't want to deal with it. While I think I'm a special snowflake and that everyone should cater to me, I'm not so adament about inclusion because it'd benefit only me. Firstly, sexism - especially "historic"-esque, or "genre"-based sexism - is uncreative and doesn't make much sense, and secondly, getting rid of the boys' club feel is a positive step in the right direction (especially since bigotry can be explored in more palatable ways). As I mentioned earlier, bad gender representation makes material feel and seem very dated.


----------



## Cadfan

Oni said:


> I would venture a guess that the majority of the described sexism in regards to campaign settings and the gender counts has more to do with laziness and failure to leave the comfort zone than any kind of subconscious misogynistic tendencies on the parts of the writers.



Some would say that laziness and failure to leave the comfort zone are the roots of a great deal of the world's sexism, racism, and other -isms.  Not outright disliking people because of this or that characteristic, but just failing to remember that they're even around.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Bumbles said:


> I know I was!  I am also uncaring today.  I do find the people who do care offensive.  I don't tell *you* to get a hair cut, now do I?   And don't even get me started on the folks who will do things like reach for your neck to straighten your collar.  One day some old lady is going to do that and get a hip broken for their trouble.



And based on how upset you're getting about it "Uncaring about my look" WAS (and possibly still is) your look and therefore part of your identity (just like helping young men clean up right is part of the identity of some old ladies).

That's the funny part, actually.  Guys will go to extreme lengths to prove they don't care.  They will punch you in the face for alleging that they care.  That is clear demonstration of the fact that they care quite a lot about your perception of their appearance.  Specifically that they need to be perceived as opposite to the feminine norm.

The feminine norm is appearing to care.  You have professed here that you will break an old lady's hip to avoid appearing like you care about your appearance.  Therefore, you are willing to do extreme things (or at least make hyperbolic statements about your intent) to prove you are not showing a feminine characteristic.

And we're back to implicit sexism.  I love me a case study that comes naturally out of the conversation.

Incidentally, I suffer from the same image issue.  Most of my wardrobe that wasn't selected by my wife or her family _screams_ "I don't care!"  I have developed it to the point where it really is effortless to project the appearance of effortlessness, and I generally don't like to think about my clothes beyond making sure the colors match.  Unless I'm in a tux.  You put me in a tuxedo and I turn into a total "girl."  I will primp.  I will obsess about the line and how well polished the shoes are.

For some odd reason, I actually look really good in the right cut of a tuxedo and some suits.  And it goes totally to my head making me an insufferable git.



Campbell said:


> That's a faulty basis of comparison because males experience appearance oversensitivity in different ways than females. Dudes aren't supposed to be waifs, they're supposed to be strong and athletic so they don't stop eating - they become obsessed with working out. How many dudes have you met that spend 3-4 hrs a day working out when its not related to their jobs?



Bingo.

a) Male body image is different, leading to different reactions and different pathologies

b) Male mental pathology is grossly under-reported, IMO.

I have known several men go to the gym pathologically.  Doing something healthy for unhealthy reasons is usually given a pass in our society, however.

However, as Dannyalcatraz has pointed out, the traditionally feminine body issue problems have also begun to crop up among boys, too.  Waifish boys are, in fact, in vogue in some circles, plus the masculine/feminine behavior lines are slowly being blurred.  This is generally a good thing, leastways when it leads to boys with body image issues actually getting treatment instead of carrying it into adulthood and getting it labeled as normal male behavior.


----------



## RefinedBean

Proserpine said:


> _In a world with magic and multiple intelligent species, gender would work differently_. For real.




You know this how?

I'm not even disagreeing with you, and I'm not trying to be pedantic.  You seem more learned in feminism, both modern and historical, than I'll ever be.

But I think Oni's point could be expanded upon:  a setting with inherent sexism as part of its foundation isn't necessarily a bad thing, if implemented thoughtfully.  Now if that was part of the main D&D setting, which props up a large part of the industry, that's where things do get a bit nasty.


----------



## Mallus

Cadfan said:


> Some would say that laziness and failure to leave the comfort zone are the roots of a great deal of the world's sexism, racism, and other -isms.  Not outright disliking people because of this or that characteristic, but just failing to remember that they're even around.



Well said.


----------



## Oni

Proserpine said:


> _In a world with magic and multiple intelligent species, gender would work differently_. For real. And that's something a lot of people don't seem to consider. This, more than anything, bugs me. Why would an entire world be sexist when there are multiple intelligent species and magic? That changes the dynamic a lot, and retaining sexism (especially since it's always "benign" sexism against womem) has more to do with a long tradition of sexism and exclusion in real life.
> 
> And personally, when I play a game, I don't want to deal with it. While I think I'm a special snowflake and that everyone should cater to me, I'm not so adament about inclusion because it'd benefit only me. Firstly, sexism - especially "historic"-esque, or "genre"-based sexism - is uncreative and doesn't make much sense, and secondly, getting rid of the boys' club feel is a positive step in the right direction (especially since bigotry can be explored in more palatable ways). As I mentioned earlier, bad gender representation makes material feel and seem very dated.





Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.  Largely that is up to the creator of a given world.  One cannot simply say it wouldn't work that way because there is no basis to make that statement.  We have only human nature to fall back on in such situations as a guide to reactions to impossible fictional events.  I think though you are too quick to dismiss the possibility.  Gender roles to have a fundamental starting point in the basics of biology.  This seed of difference is what leads to sexism.  Sexism however, at least in my eyes, is about maintaining the status quo, that is to say it is about men maintaining dominance over women.  The desire to be in control, to have the superior status in society will not simply disappear because the environment is different, or you've added people with pointy ears.  Without some sort of universal enlightenment I find it highly dubious that sexism and any number of other 'isms would not exist in some form or another.  The how and the why, or even the why not should be decided by the needs of the work, rather than just saying nuh-uh because it doesn't fit some particular social agenda.


----------



## Hussar

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but this hit me as I finished page three and I wanted to get it out.

Gaming is a male dominated hobby.  That's factually true.  So, it can't really avoid being sexist - when 4/5ths of your audience is male, you're going to cater to that audience.  That's not so much sexism as just business.  

However, trying to claim that there is no gender bias in the fans is not true IMO.  Think about it for a second.  When did the demographics of gaming change?  When the Storyteller system came out.  Vampire did far more to make the hobby accessable to women than D&D ever did.  

Yet, even today, we have posters, multiple posters, telling all and sundry that storyteller, or narative to use the Forgism, games, "aren't really roleplaying".  They're not "true" roleplaying games.  They should be called something else, since, after all, anyone who plays these games aren't actually engaging in role playing.

I've seen posts exactly like that multiple times just in the past few weeks, never mind in the dark ages of the early hobby times.

So, how can that not be considered sexist and exclusionary?  When male gamers publicly argue that the games that female gamers often prefer aren't "real" rpg's and don't really belong, how can that not be considered sexist?


----------



## ajanders

shilsen said:


> I'll assume you're being facetious here. And nobody, not even me, would suggest that a campaign should be all Luna all the time. That way lies madness.




Why should that be facetious?
What's the difference between four female wizards/warlocks/ bards/spellswords and the front cover of "Magical Witch-Girls"?
They all have magical powers, they're all female, and at first level they're supposed to be "young and finding their place in the world".

If Witch-Girls is non-sexist and valid game for redressing sexual imbalance, is not a Witch-Girls D&D game also non-sexist and possibly valid for redress?


----------



## I'm A Banana

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Some would say that laziness and failure to leave the comfort zone are the roots of a great deal of the world's sexism, racism, and other -isms. Not outright disliking people because of this or that characteristic, but just failing to remember that they're even around.




Others would say that's the ultimate example of nonprejudice: You forget or ignore that people even HAVE differences, unless you make a special effort. To be color-blind or gender-blind is largely encouraged in the "progressive" nations today. 

Both extremes of the continuum are problematic. Heck, the whole continuum is problematic, and fantasy in general gets into it because archetypes are just stereotypes and fantasy is all about archetypes. The archetype of the greedy dwarf IS the charictature of a middle-ages Jewish stereotype, to varying degrees, because, well, multiculturalism and tolerance are fairly new concepts in the world, and are certainly antithetical to the kind of tribal/feudal mythic mindset in which Fantasy sits happily.

I think D&D needs to steer away from it on its face, but this is part of why I don't like the "decency clause" in the d20 Liscence or the GSL. Imaginative, honest fantasy will play with the ideas of gender and race and religion in various ways, not all of them flattering. The Hindu gods in Deities and Demigods and gnomes with big noses and Vistani in Ravenloft and basic cheesecake art and more...stuff like that flirts with offensive, despite the opportunities that playing with those archetypes and ideas allows. 

In general, WotC has been double-plus good for D&D like this. Of course, the math and spatial ability that D&D requires is linked to testosterone, so the more D&D focuses on minis combat, the less D&D is able to stradle that gender line of players (yes, some women have lots of testosterone, but I'm talking overall trends).


----------



## Hussar

Ok, phew, finally finished the thread.

Now, I don't actually believe that the core books in 3e or 4e are all that terribly sexist.  I think that the Rouse has nicely pointed out all the points that need to be pointed to, so, I'm not going to belabor the point.

However, I do think the community does have some issues.  Looking at Ariosto's post:




Ariosto said:


> /snip
> 
> The 1E urban encounters table includes harlots for the same reason as beggars and brigands; drunks and demons; gentlemen and goodwives; laborers and lycanthropes; and so on. Like the whole of AD&D, it was a reflection of Gygax's Greyhawk campaign -- which in turn reflected, through a personal lens, the genre of sword-and-sorcery and planetary romances. The city depicted is one not too strange to a reader of Leigh Brackett, Robert E. Howard or (perhaps above all) Fritz Leiber, whose Lankhmar bore some resemblance to the Los Angeles he knew.
> 
> 
> /snip
> 
> The suggestion in this day and age that a *historical* fiction need be bowdlerized for the sake of feminine sensibilities would, I think, be obviously patronizing -- and obviously ignorant of the contents of "romance novels".
> 
> /snip
> 
> On the other hand, I have but a little patience for those who (in any of a number of areas) embark on crusades to make D&D officially something else. There are plenty of somethings else from which to choose, and there is as much room for more as there is real demand for something different.




Sorry snipped for length.  

This approach has been brought up time and time again on these forums.  That there is a "proper" inspirational source for D&D, and that source is traditional fantasy.  Tolkien, Howard, Lieber, etc.

But, look at traditional fantasy.  Can you possibly get more sexist?  Name three female protagonists from fantasy written before 1970.  There are a couple, but, they are pretty few and far between.  Far and away more are the Conan's and the Fafrd's and the Bilbo's.  Heck, they actually had to ADD a female character to the LotR movie because, other than Galadrial, I can't think of a single female character that has more than a paragraph.

Again, how can this not be considered sexist?  If the game is based on this sort of fantasy, and cannot be "made something else", then we are stuck basing the game on incredibly misogynistic (never mind the racism in these books) part of the genre.  Time and time again, I've read on these boards that we have to guard the game against allowing any newer fantasy in, because it's "just not good enough".

While I know the purpose of that attitude is not to exclude women, that is one of the effects.  If you insist that the only sources we draw on are works written by dead authors, then the game can't not be incredibly sexist in its base.


----------



## shilsen

Canis said:


> But, were you actually as uncaring at age 12?  Past tense was relevant there




Actually (and for many around me, sadly), yes. I always sucked when it came/comes to caring about issues of appearance 



Oni said:


> I have a serious problem with the sterilization of creative endeavors for the promotion of social values over the integrity of the work.  If the world is egalitarian great let it be so, but if it's not don't force it to be so.




I disagree with a lot of your assumptions. For one, I don't think the vast majority of campaign settings (published or otherwise) have any real integrity to them. Especially faux-medieval ones, which look incredibly incoherent to me since they attempt to retain the trappings of medievalism while not incorporating elements which were essential to the creation of medieval Europe (since such settings are invariably European in nature) and failing to account for how D&D elements such as multiple intelligent races and the presence of magic would change them. And you're assuming that I am a proponent of all campaign worlds having perfect egalitarianism. I'm not. But a world can be drastically non-egalitarian without being sexist in a way which maps the real world. But invariably, these worlds do repeat real world sexism. I've never seen a campaign setting which is sexist and matriarchal, for example. You can have settings which have integrity and creativity and are not sterilized without revisiting the same old tired tropes of real world sexism. Eberron is a case in point.   



> Now I understand that this might be kind of an extreme stance to take with regard to campaign settings, it's a game right?  But how interesting is fantasy world after fantasy world were everyone's equal and no one treats you different because of the way you look, unless of course you happen to be green.  Besides where does this kind of things stop?




See my comment above about egalitarianism. A world where the sexes are treated equally can still treat characters differently based on race, species, nationality, age, whether they use magic, etc. There are a million different ways to have conflict and differentiation between individuals without having to reuse real-world sexism. And many of those would be much more creative and smarter, in my estimation, than trying to recreate (intentionally or otherwise) real-world sexism in a world which is patently _not_ the real world.



Mallus said:


> That's not something shil's advocating. He's talking about the unintentional expression of sexist attitudes.
> 
> For example, shilsen is currently running a setting I co-wrote. I can certainly speak authoritatively about the 'integrity' of that particular work. I was more than a little surprised to hear that the vast majority of interesting NPC's in the setting were men. It shouldn't surprise me, it's what my friend John and I wrote.
> 
> That's a kind of inadvertent, but very real sexism. Our unstated default assumption was that the authority figures and men of action, should be, in fact, men. It wasn't intentional. I wasn't trying for a certain level of historicity, I wasn't trying to make a point.
> 
> And I ended up making a one. One I don't particularly like.
> 
> I've written more egalitarian settings in the past. Heck, my last one, which was partly a parody of swords and sorcery conventions, complete with deliberate sexism and racism had stronger female NPC's. What gets my goat is that in the setting where I didn't think about gender roles, in automatically made the world about guys (in a manner of speaking).
> 
> It's not quite that plain... but it's plain enough to get me thinking.




Thanks. That was just really classy, in my estimation, since I think it's usually a lot harder to decipher inadvertent sexism when one does it oneself. I think if more people used the sort of objectivity and self-awareness you did there, we'd all have a much easier time with this subject. 



Oni said:


> If you read it as I did, the implication that the creative exploration of certain topics is fit only to hidden away from the light of day, and something that shouldn't be allowed to be published as a campaign setting.




That's an implication I wasn't making. I was making the statement that much of D&D, unthinkingly and (more or less) subtly reinforces real world sexism. If it explored real world sexism in a smart and creative way, I'd be all for it. But I don't see it happening.  



> Regarding any creative work though it is the creator's responsibility to be mindful of what they are creating, to exercise control over the creative process. You can tell when thought has been put into to something rather than just doing what comes easiest and most natural, falling back into the comfort zone.  I would venture a guess that the majority of the described sexism in regards to campaign settings and the gender counts has more to do with laziness and failure to leave the comfort zone than any kind of subconscious misogynistic tendencies on the parts of the writers.




As Cadfan and Mallus noted, laziness and a failure to leave the comfort zone can and very often lead to sexism (and other -isms, of course). It's precisely the laziness and failure to leave the comfort zone which I'm critiquing. 



RefinedBean said:


> But I think Oni's point could be expanded upon:  a setting with inherent sexism as part of its foundation isn't necessarily a bad thing, if implemented thoughtfully.  Now if that was part of the main D&D setting, which props up a large part of the industry, that's where things do get a bit nasty.




I agree about the implementing thoughtfully, which is not what I see happening. And I agree that sexism as a default in the main D&D setting(s) is a problem, hence this thread.



Oni said:


> Maybe it would, maybe it wouldn't.  Largely that is up to the creator of a given world.  One cannot simply say it wouldn't work that way because there is no basis to make that statement.  We have only human nature to fall back on in such situations as a guide to reactions to impossible fictional events.  I think though you are too quick to dismiss the possibility.  Gender roles to have a fundamental starting point in the basics of biology.




And your last sentence is why I agree with Proserpine that I fundamentally cannot see sexism which maps so close to real-world sexism as a default (which is how it's usually presented) in D&D worlds. Biology is drastically different than our world in a D&D world, if simply because men and women can be exactly as strong, fast, durable, intelligent, wise and charismatic as each other. The strongest PC in the world can just as easily be a man as a woman. And then there's the existence of magic, which makes physical strength and biology much less important when it comes to influence on society. And then there's the fact that a myriad different species, with different biologies, inhabit these worlds. And yet somehow when sexism exists in these worlds, it is almost always patriarchal sexism, in the same way that it exists in much of our world. To me, that's no more logical than someone arguing that chimpanzees in a zoo should have a patriarchal society simply because the USA does.  



> This seed of difference is what leads to sexism.  Sexism however, at least in my eyes, is about maintaining the status quo, that is to say it is about men maintaining dominance over women.  The desire to be in control, to have the superior status in society will not simply disappear because the environment is different, or you've added people with pointy ears.  Without some sort of universal enlightenment I find it highly dubious that sexism and any number of other 'isms would not exist in some form or another.  The how and the why, or even the why not should be decided by the needs of the work, rather than just saying nuh-uh because it doesn't fit some particular social agenda.




Unfortunately, the needs of the work, most of the time, seems to me to be to use the easiest and most common denominator - i.e. the sexism which people are used to in our world - rather than actually thinking deeply about how issues of difference and power might be mediated in a world very different from ours. I think all sorts of interesting things can be done with sexism and racism and other forms of inequality in D&D campaign settings. This is a form of speculative fiction after all, and one of the coolest things about speculative fiction, for me, is the exploration of how the human condition would change if certain things which are true to our world were different in the fictional one. But when that exploration always ends with patriarchal sexism, I call shenanigans.



ajanders said:


> Why should that be facetious?
> What's the difference between four female wizards/warlocks/ bards/spellswords and the front cover of "Magical Witch-Girls"?
> They all have magical powers, they're all female, and at first level they're supposed to be "young and finding their place in the world".
> 
> If Witch-Girls is non-sexist and valid game for redressing sexual imbalance, is not a Witch-Girls D&D game also non-sexist and possibly valid for redress?




The fact that one is in D&D and the other isn't, is a salient difference to me. As some people have noted above, D&D has a particular position in gaming which other systems don't have. With D&D being in many ways the default system in gaming (and yes, there are some problems with that fact too), I think it should strive to be more welcoming to players of different genders, races, etc. The fact that it (and gaming in general) isn't is the reason why games like Witch-Girls can be helpful. And right from the start of this thread, I've been advocating settings which are more egalitatarian (or at least explore sexism intelligently), not ones which focus on excluding any gender. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Others would say that's the ultimate example of nonprejudice: You forget or ignore that people even HAVE differences, unless you make a special effort. To be color-blind or gender-blind is largely encouraged in the "progressive" nations today.




Except that a lot of supposed color-blindness or gender-blindness is simply a recapitulation of the positions of color and gender in the status quo. 



> Of course, the math and spatial ability that D&D requires is linked to testosterone, so the more D&D focuses on minis combat, the less D&D is able to stradle that gender line of players (yes, some women have lots of testosterone, but I'm talking overall trends).




Testosterone makes you better at math and spatial ability? That's the first time I've heard that claim!



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> Ok, phew, finally finished the thread.




You are a very patient and dedicated person!



> Now, I don't actually believe that the core books in 3e or 4e are all that terribly sexist. I think that the Rouse has nicely pointed out all the points that need to be pointed to, so, I'm not going to belabor the point.




Agreed. I don't think the core rules are sexist at all, actually, and work quite well to avoid them. The artwork, the miniatures line, the campaign settings, and the modules, however, I think can and do sometimes express sexist ideas. Usually unintentionally, I believe, and simply by assuming that masculinity is the norm, but the lack of intentionality doesn't make it any the better.


----------



## Bumbles

Canis said:


> And based on how upset you're getting about it "Uncaring about my look" WAS (and possibly still is) your look and therefore part of your identity (just like helping young men clean up right is part of the identity of some old ladies).




And I'd say you're quite wrong.  It's not part of my look in the sense that I conceive it as part of my image. It's who I am, because I really don't care.

I do care, however, about people forming opinions about others.  That's why I find your opinion about me here to be offensive.  You think you know about me when it's really only your own assumptions that are forming your opinions.  I hate that in all its forms.  Even when not related to myself.   When somebody starts talking about what they think of somebody else...I really do find myself being offended.   Especially when it's probably inaccurate or unfair.

In this case, I know it's inaccurate.  I'd feel the same way if it were an opinion unrelated to appearance, like "stop playing those damn devil games!" or some such.

Believe it or not.



> You have professed here that you will break an old lady's hip to avoid appearing like you care about your appearance.




Actually, no.   The real reason (for me and many others) is actually related to being touched or reached for out of surprise.

Some people do have reactions like that, with various reasons.   I have elbowed folks who have come up on me from behind...and more than a few times, I've surprised my cats while sleeping.   I don't believe they were concerned that I was saying anything about their appearance.


----------



## Ariosto

Hussar, it's your choice to put such a value on the "RPG" term. Heck, you can insist on calling your preferred mode "wargames campaigns" (as D&D was originally billed) if you like.

However, calling people sexist because they distinguish games in which one plays the role of Oliver Twist from those in which one "plays the role" not even of Charles Dickens but instead (and in a purely functional sense) that of one of a committee of editors writing a story about Oliver Twist is ... just twisted!

It's at least as meaningful a distinction as what has arisen between RPGs and wargames, or any of myriad other taxonomies. As people recognize the emergence of a new form and begin to treat it on its own terms, they naturally tend so to refer to it! The notion that it is somewhere better to remain lost in the shadow of another school seems to me pretty rare in such cases.


----------



## Doug McCrae

shilsen said:


> I've never seen a campaign setting which is sexist and matriarchal, for example.



Any featuring drow? The most perverse and evil society Gary could imagine was one where women are in charge.


----------



## Bumbles

shilsen said:


> I've never seen a campaign setting which is sexist and matriarchal, for example.




RPGnet : The Inside Scoop on Gaming

There you go.



> See my comment above about egalitarianism. A world where the sexes are treated equally can still treat characters differently based on race, species, nationality, age, whether they use magic, etc. There are a million different ways to have conflict and differentiation between individuals without having to reuse real-world sexism. And many of those would be much more creative and smarter, in my estimation, than trying to recreate (intentionally or otherwise) real-world sexism in a world which is patently _not_ the real world.




Careful, it seems like you're saying racism and other discrimination is ok in games, but not if it's gender-based.  I really hope you didn't intend to open up that particular quagmire.





> Biology is drastically different than our world in a D&D world, if simply because men and women can be exactly as strong, fast, durable, intelligent, wise and charismatic as each other. The strongest PC in the world can just as easily be a man as a woman.




This is not true in 1st edition.  Which also had races covered too.  Would you like to go back to that model?



> And then there's the existence of magic, which makes physical strength and biology much less important when it comes to influence on society. And then there's the fact that a myriad different species, with different biologies, inhabit these worlds. And yet somehow when sexism exists in these worlds, it is almost always patriarchal sexism, in the same way that it exists in much of our world. To me, that's no more logical than someone arguing that chimpanzees in a zoo should have a patriarchal society simply because the USA does.




Only if one believed that the USA created the Chimpanzees.  I'm sorry, but your analogy is just so illogical you should be hit with a wet trout.  Your comments would be far better without such an obviously unsupported comparison.



> With D&D being in many ways the default system in gaming (and yes, there are some problems with that fact too), I think it should strive to be more welcoming to players of different genders, races, etc.




How?   Leaving off that bit is kind of a problem, even if you have mentioned it before in bits of pieces, if you're going to bring up the advice again, a specific path here would improve your words considerably.



> Testosterone makes you better at math and spatial ability? That's the first time I've heard that claim!




There's a bit here:

Half Sigma: Biological basis for sex differences in math ability

I'm sure there's lots of other studies you can find.

Note, I am explicitly and sincerely not interested in arguing the merits of this, I'm merely posting this to acknowledge the existence, and I do not wish to get into a discussion of the subject here.  So I won't.


----------



## Bumbles

Doug McCrae said:


> Any featuring drow? The most perverse and evil society Gary could imagine was one where women are in charge.




Really?  I thought that honor would go to Tharizdun's followers.


----------



## Proserpine

RefinedBean said:


> You know this how?
> 
> I'm not even disagreeing with you, and I'm not trying to be pedantic. You seem more learned in feminism, both modern and historical, than I'll ever be.
> 
> But I think Oni's point could be expanded upon: a setting with inherent sexism as part of its foundation isn't necessarily a bad thing, if implemented thoughtfully. Now if that was part of the main D&D setting, which props up a large part of the industry, that's where things do get a bit nasty.




Thanks about the learned in feminism bit. My learning is unfortunately a little narrow, however, as I'm much better informed about (not mention more comfortable with) feminism's modern manifestation.

And that's true: as far as creative endeavors go, sexism isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's just that sexism seems to generally mean using sexism _as we know it_ and applying it to fantasy settings. I wouldn't mind an intelligent application of sexism if sexism meant lawful and good matriarchies as well as patriarchies (whether among species or a particular city), as that would mean there wouldn't be a default position regarding the "norm" in the world itself. I wouldn't mind anything similarly thoughtful. The problem is, sexism isn't handled very thoughtfully that often. Here's a decent example in D&D itself: the drow. They're the only explicitly matriarchal species in the game (that I know of), and they're *evil *and misandrist in very obvious ways. Whether that's coincidental or not means little to me. The implication that female-against-male sexism creates evil societies (especially since there are no contrasting good matriarchal species, city, whatever) is still there.

Now to answer the "You know this how?" bit:

My most basic response to that would be that it's unrealistic for every society or species to be sexist in the same way, and for that sexism - regardless of the degree - to consistently manifest as the traditional male-against-female sexism. It's dumb to argue realism in a fantasy game, but the justification for sexism is often that it's more "realistic". 

Oni said this in the thread: "This seed of difference [biological differences] is what leads to sexism. Sexism however, at least in my eyes, is about maintaining the status quo, that is to say it is about men maintaining dominance over women". But the presence of magic would make biology matter less, because women would have a way to bridge the biological inequality of male versus female strength. Of course, people could get around this by saying magic is learned in much the same way that complex arithmetic is learned, and that this learning is only afforded to men. At the same time, I don’t think this wouldn’t apply across the board with every single species.  
And speaking of biological differences, a lot of intrinsically female things (like child birth) would be made much easier or effective in a magical world. Women could pop out their two kids without them dying then or later, and then go out to war or adventure. This especially applies to species with long life spans (like, you know, elves – they get to have their cake and eat it too). I’d understand if sexism among humans was similar to real world/historical instances of gender bias, but there are so many factors within a fantasy world which would influence the way they and other species viewed gender.
I typed my response a few times and still don't feel like I'm articulating myself well, so I hope I'm getting myself across okay. What I mentioned are just a few reasons why I think gender would (and should) work quite differently in a fantasy setting.


----------



## Ariosto

> I've read on these boards that we have to guard the game against allowing any newer fantasy in.



That is not my position. I favor *inclusion*; the directly opposing view is one of *exclusion*: that we have to guard the game against allowing any classical fantasy in.


----------



## I'm A Banana

> Testosterone makes you better at math and spatial ability? That's the first time I've heard that claim!




Also makes your ring finger longer!

High Testosterone is good for math, spatial ability, music (which is a spatial ability)...the usual caveats, of course, apply, and it's important to realize that testosterone does not equal male and estrogen does not equal female, but, well, there's a REASON the archetype is that playing in a band gets you groupies and hangers-on if you're a guy, but not so much if you're rocking Lilith Fair. 



> Except that a lot of supposed color-blindness or gender-blindness is simply a recapitulation of the positions of color and gender in the status quo.




IMXP, the bigger risk is in glossing over actual substantive differences in the interest of being PC. There's a reason multiculturalism generally means westernization: multiculturalism is basically a western idea itself.  

Gender differences are tougher to erase, and easier to be concious of, because there is likely more real difference between the genders than there is between, I dunno, a Mongolian man and a guy from Florida. But there is something to the idea that gender-blindness is basically patriarchy, but just with pantsuits instead of regular suits.


----------



## Hussar

Ariosto said:


> Hussar, it's your choice to put such a value on the "RPG" term. Heck, you can insist on calling your preferred mode "wargames campaigns" (as D&D was originally billed) if you like.
> 
> However, calling people sexist because they distinguish games in which one plays the role of Oliver Twist from those in which one "plays the role" not even of Charles Dickens but instead (and in a purely functional sense) that of one of a committee of editors writing a story about Oliver Twist is ... just twisted!
> 
> It's at least as meaningful a distinction as what has arisen between RPGs and wargames, or any of myriad other taxonomies. As people recognize the emergence of a new form and begin to treat it on its own terms, they naturally tend so to refer to it! The notion that it is somewhere better to remain lost in the shadow of another school seems to me pretty rare in such cases.




I'm sorry, but you've lost me here.  I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

I'm saying that it's sexist to insist that D&D remain fixated or based on earlier fantasy because earlier fantasy is extremely sexist.  If we base the game on Howard, for example, then the game is going to be sexist.  It can't not be sexist and still remain anywhere near true to Howard.  

The same can be said for pretty much any fantasy written before about 1965.



Ariosto said:


> That is not my position. I favor *inclusion*; the directly opposing view is one of *exclusion*: that we have to guard the game against allowing any classical fantasy in.




How can you favor inclusion when, in your own words, you insist that 







			
				Ariosto said:
			
		

> The suggestion in this day and age that a historical fiction need be bowdlerized for the sake of feminine sensibilities would, I think, be obviously patronizing -- and obviously ignorant of the contents of "romance novels".




Now, I would ask you to clarify for a moment if you include fantasy in historical fiction, or if you simply mistakenly attributed traditional fantasy to historical fiction.

In any case, you are stating that any fiction which does not follow traditional fantasy lines is a bowdlerization.  How is that inclusionary?

Now, I picked you, because you posted in this thread.  Given a few minutes and a search, I could pick out many, MANY other posters who have stated, pretty emphatically, that any source other than Dead Authors is bad for D&D.


----------



## Bumbles

Proserpine said:


> The implication that female-against-male sexism creates evil societies (especially since there are no contrasting good matriarchal species, city, whatever) is still there.




The problem is that this implication may be the log in your own eye, not the mote in say, Gary's, or others who don't care that the drow are a matriarchy or even dare I say it...black-skinned!

Yes, there are folks who clamor that the drow are an example of racism too.

Been that way for a while.

I suggest though, that instead of arguing against it, you create something more in line with what you do want.   

And I seem to recall some non-evil female dominated societies in D&D...some city in Greyhawk perhaps?  The Witches of Rashemen?  The Druids of the Moonshaes?   There may be something in Birthright as well...or Darokin in Mystara?   (And if the Hollow World doesn't have something, I'd be surprised, it has all sorts of other tropes...)


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Bumbles, I'm sorry if I offended you.  I find all of this hysterical for a variety of reasons, and it probably makes me a tad insensitive.

I'll stay away from further commentary on that specific issue.

However, I can't really let this go by from your other post:



Bumbles said:


> There's a bit here:
> 
> Half Sigma: Biological basis for sex differences in math ability
> 
> I'm sure there's lots of other studies you can find.



Prenatal environment and hormonal effects was actually my field for a few years, and I can tell you that's a pretty impressive load of tripe.  I'm trying to track down the primary sources on it and keep coming up with nothing but contradictions.

For one thing, testosterone doesn't cross the blood-brain barrier as testosterone.  It is converted into estrogen at crossing, so you literally _can't_ have opposite effects on brain structures with prenatal testosterone that is fetus-sourced.  Any (highly debatable) male-female brain differences have to be secondary to other changes.  Furthermore, their study has no data on mother-sourced hormones for the children they tested, so it's one inference piled on top of another, plus those inferences are about step 1 and step 7 with no information on steps 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

Additionally, effects of this type even when they do work out usually account for something like 1-2% of the variance, which is effectively zilch.  That's less than the change in test scores that results from having a mild stomach upset the day of the test.

I would take that with at least a grain of salt.  Maybe even a big ol' salt lick.


----------



## Proserpine

Oni said:


> The how and the why, or even the why not should be decided by the needs of the work, rather than just saying nuh-uh because it doesn't fit some particular social agenda.




See, I don't feel treating 51% of the population like equals is "fitting" a particular social agenda. Regarding the rest of what you posted, my previous response (to RefinedBean) more or less covers my position.



Hussar said:


> This approach has been brought up time and time again on these forums.  That there is a "proper" inspirational source for D&D, and that source is traditional fantasy.  Tolkien, Howard, Lieber, etc.
> 
> But, look at traditional fantasy.  Can you possibly get more sexist?  Name three female protagonists from fantasy written before 1970.
> 
> ...
> 
> While I know the purpose of that attitude is not to exclude women, that is one of the effects.  If you insist that the only sources we draw on are works written by dead authors, then the game can't not be incredibly sexist in its base.




Agreed agreed agreed. While this isn't the only issue, it certainly is one of them.



shilsen said:


> I disagree with a lot of your assumptions. For one, I don't think the vast majority of campaign settings (published or otherwise) have any real integrity to them. Especially faux-medieval ones, which look incredibly incoherent to me since they attempt to retain the trappings of medievalism while not incorporating elements which were essential to the creation of medieval Europe (since such settings are invariably European in nature) and failing to account for how D&D elements such as multiple intelligent races and the presence of magic would change them. And you're assuming that I am a proponent of all campaign worlds having perfect egalitarianism. I'm not. But a world can be drastically non-egalitarian without being sexist in a way which maps the real world. But invariably, these worlds do repeat real world sexism. I've never seen a campaign setting which is sexist and matriarchal, for example. You can have settings which have integrity and creativity and are not sterilized without revisiting the same old tired tropes of real world sexism. Eberron is a case in point.
> 
> 
> See my comment above about egalitarianism. A world where the sexes are treated equally can still treat characters differently based on race, species, nationality, age, whether they use magic, etc. There are a million different ways to have conflict and differentiation between individuals without having to reuse real-world sexism. And many of those would be much more creative and smarter, in my estimation, than trying to recreate (intentionally or otherwise) real-world sexism in a world which is patently _not_ the real world.




Scary. Or fitting. I wrote some similar stuff in my previous post!




Bumbles said:


> Careful, it seems like you're saying racism and other discrimination is ok in games, but not if it's gender-based.  I really hope you didn't intend to open up that particular quagmire.




He's stated several times in the thread that racism, sexism, and other discrimination which maps directly onto the real world is not necessarily okay.

And damn. Shilsen can defend himself, but the following comments are neither constructive nor productive when it comes to the discussion. "You should be hit with a wet trout"? Really? (And in that part of your response, you're focusing specifically on the analogy rather than the point he made, dictating how the content should be articulated. Commendable.)



> There's a bit here:
> 
> Half Sigma: Biological basis for sex differences in math ability
> 
> I'm sure there's lots of other studies you can find.




Dude. There are studies saying you can "catch fatness" like a common cold.  There are also many stupid studies that support sexist ideas. The blog you linked to says: "That there is some biological basis behind the observation that men are better at math than women is plain old common sense, because there have never been any sociological explanations that made sense." Hmm. I am not sensing a bias!


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Oni said:


> Gender roles to have a fundamental starting point in the basics of biology.  This seed of difference is what leads to sexism.



As a biologist..... um... no, not really all that much.  There's some very primitive and ill supported notions about primate social structure that fall apart pretty badly when you mess with sexual dimorphism (which is all over the map in humans).  Compare Bonobos to Chimpanzees, for example.  Sexual dimorphism certainly seems to be the primary determinant of gender roles in non-human primates, but humans have a variety of gender roles regardless of the degree of dimorphism.

Sexism appears very cultural.  I would provide an anthropological example, but I've already been insensitive once this evening and I don't think I can touch that topic safely.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Others would say that's the ultimate example of nonprejudice: You forget or ignore that people even HAVE differences, unless you make a special effort. To be color-blind or gender-blind is largely encouraged in the "progressive" nations today.



Ye gods, I hope not.  "Color-blindness" tends to alienate minorities and make the majorities edgy and weird in social interactions (well, edgier and weirder than we already are, anyway).  Multiculturalism is typically more workable and pleasant for everyone involved.


----------



## resistor

pawsplay said:


> Let me put it this way. If you are black, you do not get to choose if your ethnic heritage is considered important by other people.




I don't get to choose if my place of birth (the deep south) is considered important by other people;  people come in with pre-judgments about me all the time, from the moment I open my mouth.


----------



## Ariosto

double post


----------



## Ariosto

*bowdlerize* to expurgate (a play, novel, etc.) by removing or modifying passages prudishly considered immodest.

To expurgate or remove is to "exclude". 







> You are stating that any fiction which does not follow traditional fantasy lines is a bowdlerization.



I have made no such statement.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

shilsen said:


> Let's just say you have a very different idea of how people's surrounding culture(s) mediate their choices than I do.




I didn't say mediate. I said force. If Spanky wants to play He-Man Woman-Hater D&D, that doesn't force Alfalfa to do the same thing.

Let's say that 99% of the people play RPGs in a badwrongfun way. Does that affect the available groups for the remaining 1%? Sure. Does it affect what minis will be available? Sure. But does it force the 1% to play badwrongfun too? No, not at all. No one is entitled to expect other groups to play how they wish they would play.



shilsen said:


> Testosterone makes you better at math and spatial ability? That's the first time I've heard that claim!




As I'm sure others will point out before I finish this, there is a well established trend that men have better spatial reasoning ability than women. That says nothing about any individual. But the trend is well known and well supported by research (for example, Simon Baron-Cohen has an article on the front page of edge.org, or at least he did a day ago, talking about boys vs. girls and brain development, and iirc, it touches on spatial reasoning).

Actually, I think we may be seeing an important point coming out of this thread. Namely, the world is sexist. Human nature makes male brains and female brains different (on average, saying nothing about an individual). RPGs should leverage that. How can they best do it? I don't know, but I believe that selling them, in a free market of money and ideas, is the best way to arrive at the best product. So vive la difference!


----------



## Bumbles

Canis said:


> I'll stay away from further commentary on that specific issue.




Fair enough, no real reason to argue over it.



> However, I can't really let this go by from your other post:




I can, as I was merely linking to the first convenient content I could find, and not taking any particular position on the subject, pro or con.

In fact, I thought about adding a line indicating that to my post, and it seems I should have done so.


----------



## Hussar

Bumbles - Let's be honest though.  While, I'm sure somewhere in the thirty year and thousands of published pages history of D&D, there have been good matriarchies, the one that stands out and iconic and most D&D, is Drow.  

Really, I don't think there's any argument that there was never an element in sexism in D&D.  It was there.  It was pretty blatantly there.  Strength limitations, art, etc. etc. There was sexism pretty heavily ingraned in the game.  And, in my mind, and sorry for dragging it back to this, but, it was because of the source material.

You didn't have a large number of female role models from the genre to work with after all.  In fantasy, women were beautiful, buxom and, by and large, helplessly waiting for the male protagonist to come and save them.  While there are exceptions, they are pretty few and far between.

The genre was pretty heavily male dominated in the early days.  The ovewhelming majority of the writers were male as well, with writers like Andre Norton and Mary Stewart being the very notable exceptions, not the rule.  So, it's not surprising that early D&D, based as it was on a lot of the fantasy at the time, is going to be a smidgeon on the misogynistic side.  

Again, not because EGG and co hated women.  Of course not.  That's totally not what I think.  It's just a sign of the times.  Fantasy back then mean big burly guys with swords and loincloths saving the (snicker) maiden from the evil cultists, only to be rewarded with a big gem and a right royal rogering.

Not a huge surprise that women may not have had much of a presence in those heady days.

But fantasy has changed a LOT since then.  There are a huge number of female fantasy writers (although, to my disappointment, not a similar number of SF writers) who are very popular.  Had D&D been based on Mercedes Lackey or Anne McCaffery, instead of Howard or Lieber, it would have been a VERY different game.

Fast forwarding to present day, I think Shilsen is very right.  The game itself has become more or less gender neutral.  Or at least a fair bit more balanced.  But, the hobby?  I think that could use a bit more work.

One last thought.  There is another matriarchy that is iconic to D&D.  Githyanki.  Oh look, yet another evil society led by a woman (well lich, but she was female at one time).  Kuo-Toa only have a goddess and are matriarchal as well are they not?

There are quite a few evil matriarchies in D&D IIRC.


----------



## resistor

Ycore Rixle said:


> As I'm sure others will point out before I finish this, there is a well established trend that men have better spatial reasoning ability than women. That says nothing about any individual. But the trend is well known and well supported by research (for example, Simon Baron-Cohen has an article on the front page of edge.org, or at least he did a day ago, talking about boys vs. girls and brain development, and iirc, it touches on spatial reasoning).




Actually, stuff like this is really, REALLY hard to test impartially.

One of my best friends from college is now a doctoral candidate in psychology, and he's done a lot of work on "stereotype threat" (if I remember the term correctly) in male vs. female testing like this.

The basic observation is that, if you're measuring how well females do at a stereotypically male-dominated subject (as, mathematics), they will score measurably worse if they take the test in a room mixed with male subjects, or with a male proctor.

Like I said, really REALLY hard to measure.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Ycore Rixle said:


> As I'm sure others will point out before I finish this, there is a well established trend that men have better spatial reasoning ability than women. That says nothing about any individual. But the trend is well known and well supported by research (for example, Simon Baron-Cohen has an article on the front page of edge.org, or at least he did a day ago, talking about boys vs. girls and brain development, and iirc, it touches on spatial reasoning).
> 
> Actually, I think we may be seeing an important point coming out of this thread. Namely, the world is sexist. Human nature makes male brains and female brains different (on average, saying nothing about an individual). RPGs should leverage that. How can they best do it? I don't know, but I believe that selling them, in a free market of money and ideas, is the best way to arrive at the best product. So vive la difference!



Ah, but the gender difference is, in most studies, smaller than the difference between my spatial reasoning on Tuesday when I had really good coffee and my spatial reasoning on Wednesday when I got up late and neglected to grab some.

Is that really a meaningful enough difference to keep writing articles about?

EDIT:
Resistor also makes an excellent point.  The noise in these studies tends to swamp the effects.  When your noise is gale force winds and your effects are dainty farts..... you're doing something wrong in your study design or there is no significant effect.  Yet, that's 99% of the data we have and people talk about the effects more than the noise.

Odd that.  Almost like people are picking through their research with fine-toothed combs to support largely insupportable points.


----------



## Bumbles

Proserpine said:


> He's stated several times in the thread that racism, sexism, and other discrimination which maps directly onto the real world is not necessarily okay.




If you say so, I don't recall seeing it, but the possibility that he might have was why I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that such did exist, and that's why I chose not to argue about it, but I did feel it was important enough to advise a more careful wording.  I've seen that sort of thing lead to serious arguments before.



> And damn. Shilsen can defend himself, but the following comments are neither constructive nor productive when it comes to the discussion. "You should be hit with a wet trout"? Really? (And in that part of your response, you're focusing specifically on the analogy rather than the point he made, dictating how the content should be articulated. Commendable.)




Well, the analogy was the part I found most troublesome.  It was rather silly and deserving of being hit with a wet trout.  Of course, if you're not familiar with what that bit, I'll direct you to:

Wikipedia:Whacking with a Wet Trout - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You may wish to look for other descriptions of the practice, but I hope you can recognize the intent more clearly now.

I saw no reason to argue with any of the rest, perhaps because I didn't disagree with it, perhaps because I saw no point to arguing.  However, the analogy...now that I found troublesome enough to note.

Hence the trouting. Of course, if you're not familiar with the concept, then you may be taking offense to it, without understanding the intended levity.  



> Dude. There are studies saying you can "catch fatness" like a common cold.  There are also many stupid studies that support sexist ideas. The blog you linked to says: "That there is some biological basis behind the observation that men are better at math than women is plain old common sense, because there have never been any sociological explanations that made sense." Hmm. I am not sensing a bias!




I really don't care, as I'm not espousing a position on it, I was merely providing reference to one page, and pointing out the existence of others.   I'm sincerely not interested in discussing the merits of it, and I guess I should have included that kind of disclaimer in the first place.  Oh well.


----------



## Hussar

Ariosto said:


> *bowdlerize* to expurgate (a play, novel, etc.) by removing or modifying passages prudishly considered immodest.
> 
> To expurgate or remove is to "exclude". I have made no such statement.




Thank you, I do understand bowlderize.  I, on the other hand, have no idea what the part I quoted was trying to say.  Could you rephrase it.

You have said that anything other than traditional fantasy is a bowdlerization of the genre of historical fiction.  Could you please clarify what you mean by historical fiction?  

In other words, could you please answer the questions I posted?


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Proserpine said:


> Dude. There are studies saying you can "catch fatness" like a common cold.  There are also many stupid studies that support sexist ideas. The blog you linked to says: "That there is some biological basis behind the observation that men are better at math than women is plain old common sense, because there have never been any sociological explanations that made sense." Hmm. I am not sensing a bias!




I haven't read that blog, so I can't speak for it.

Please check out these slides from Stephen Pinker. He's a psychology professor at Harvard, or was the last time I looked.

Of course, they're slides from a debate. So you can check out the other side, too. 

But there is a long, famous history of studies showing sex differences in cognitive ability.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

resistor said:


> Actually, stuff like this is really, REALLY hard to test impartially.
> 
> One of my best friends from college is now a doctoral candidate in psychology, and he's done a lot of work on "stereotype threat" (if I remember the term correctly) in male vs. female testing like this.
> 
> The basic observation is that, if you're measuring how well females do at a stereotypically male-dominated subject (as, mathematics), they will score measurably worse if they take the test in a room mixed with male subjects, or with a male proctor.
> 
> Like I said, really REALLY hard to measure.




I know what you're saying, but at this point that's like saying, "It's really, really hard to test evolution impartially." Yes, it's hard. It's especially hard to quantify. But just because it's hard doesn't mean it isn't true. Especially when it's repeated over, and over, and over again. As Stephen Pinker says in the talk I provided in my last post, "10 kinds of evidence suggest that the contribution of biology > 0."

Girls' performance on testing with males in the room isn't the issue (although it's misleading anyway, since there is also evidence that suggests guys test worse with girls in the room. They distract each other! More power to them! It's good to be distracting! I wish I were distracting!  )

The point is that it's not about testing. It's about whether or not there are sex differences in cognitive ability. And there are, according to the significant preponderance of evidence.

Ok, apologies to mods if we're way off topic here. Feel free to delete - it's late. 

But in an effort to wrench this back on to the RPG topic, here's what we can take away from all this: there are sex differences that create trends between men and women. It's no one's fault. It's biology. No one did anything wrong, or played D&D wrong, or published a topless elf maiden when they should have published an androgynous otaku ninja bishonen. It's just the way things are. D&D doesn't ignore 52% of the population. 52% of the population ignores D&D. Well, not 52% because there are tons of women that enjoy killing things and taking their stuff. But the point is, there are sex differences, and they create statistical trends, and that's ok.


----------



## Ariosto

Hussar, it is tiresome that you repeat* your false claim as to what I have "stated." I cannot help but recall time you have spent in other threads backpedaling, after catching flack for your imputation to others of positions as extreme as your own.

If you would speak for yourself instead, you are welcome to post your questions.

*Actually, I see now that you have mutated it into an even more bizarre form!


----------



## Cadfan

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Others would say that's the ultimate example of nonprejudice: You forget or ignore that people even HAVE differences, unless you make a special effort. To be color-blind or gender-blind is largely encouraged in the "progressive" nations today.



The problem with that theory is that "color blind" or "gender blind" is frequently a convenient rhetorical move.  Start by assuming that what you like is normal and color or gender blind.  After all, you and people like you are normal, and YOU like it, so it must be normal, right?  

Then assume that anything people of a different race or gender like or want is weird and different and ethnic or gender specific.  Got that?  Try to believe that you like what you like without reference to your race or gender, but other people or other races or genders who do not like it are motivated by race or gender.

Then demand color or gender blindness, which is now rhetorically equated to the stuff you like, and automatically dismissive of other people's differing opinions.

This is only really convincing to other people who also like the same things as you.  Anyone on the outside looking in isn't going to buy that lots of people with Trait X liking something is X-neutral while lots of people without Trait X disliking it is X-motivated.  But when you're in the majority, its a great way to steal the language of non discrimination and use it against people who really just want a piece of what you take for granted.

That's why I'm a bit suspicious of people who claim that they genuinely forget that people even have differences along ethnic or gender related lines.  Even if its not a malicious rhetorical move, the easiest way to forget that there are actual differences out there is to have a cavalier provinciality where you believe that your way of doing things is normal, and to live in a nice little bubble where other people all do things the way you like.  That's forgivable, everyone (everyone who lives in a comfortable majority of some kind, at least) does it to a degree, but it certainly isn't a positive thing.


----------



## Bumbles

Hussar said:


> Bumbles - Let's be honest though.  While, I'm sure somewhere in the thirty year and thousands of published pages history of D&D, there have been good matriarchies, the one that stands out and iconic and most D&D, is Drow.




Evil is often more popular than good.  It gets all the stylish outfits.  

More seriously though, are the drow an icon because they are a matriarchy, or are they just an icon that is a matriarchy?

It's similar to the question of them being dark-skinned.  I don't think it represents a racist agenda any more than them being a matriarchy represents an agenda.  (And yes, I have seen that argument espoused, as well as both of them together).



> Had D&D been based on Mercedes Lackey or Anne McCaffery, instead of Howard or Lieber, it would have been a VERY different game.




Of course, the same applies if it had been Terry Pratchett and China Mieville.  Or Neil Gaiman and Lois McMaster Bujold.  Or...



> But, the hobby? I think that could use a bit more work.




So can the real world for that matter.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Canis said:


> Ah, but the gender difference is, in most studies, smaller than the difference between my spatial reasoning on Tuesday when I had really good coffee and my spatial reasoning on Wednesday when I got up late and neglected to grab some.




It's not, though. Well, you threw the word "most" in there, and it's not like I've done a count on every single article like this ever published. (Cue Napoleon: "How could you even know that?")

Not sure what else to say. That's just not right. Take a look at the Pinker slides above. They have tons more articles listed in them.

Also, consider Occam's Razor. What's the simpler explanation? That there's a sex-based difference, or that somehow, despite a culture that has produced more girls in college and girls with better grades throughout school, there is an error in test after test after test, or a bias in society, that produces the continuing and indisputable gender differences in profession choice, science achievement, and so on?

Again, for D&D, the implication is that we should take advantage of the hand that the world has dealt us. Like anything, we'll do better work if we're not fighting reality. After Francis Bacon: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."


----------



## Hussar

Bumbles said:
			
		

> It's similar to the question of them being dark-skinned. I don't think it represents a racist agenda any more than them being a matriarchy represents an agenda. (And yes, I have seen that argument espoused, as well as both of them together).




Oh hey, yeah, I totally agree with you here.  There is no agenda, at least no concious one in AD&D on this front.  100% agree.  It's an icon that is a matriarchy.  I do not even remotely think that EGG was pushing any sort of agenda when he created the Drow, other than, "He he he, this will totally kill those characters!"  

And, true, the real world could use more work in the issue.

Ariosto - twice now I have asked you to clarify your statement.  I asked politely both times.  I read your posts as stating that D&D should be exclusionary.  I have provided quotes to show why I think that.  You claim that I am misrepresenting your point.  Twice I have asked you to clarify.  Why do you refuse?   I honestly cannot understand your point in the part that I quoted in the second post.  I believe that you misstated your point about historical fiction and asked for a clarification.

Since you refuse to clarify your points, how can I possibly change my interpretation of them?  With that in mind, let me ask directly what I find confusing:

1.  Do you advocate that D&D should continue to focus its inspiration on traditional fantasy (Tolkien, Moorcock, Lieber, etc)?
2.  Do you believe that new fantasy has anything to add to the hobby?  And, if so, what?
3.  Do you believe that D&D, as it was originally created, borrowed heavily from traditional fantasy sources (as well as others such as myth and whatnot)?
4.  I believe that by focusing the hobby on certain genre titles and writers, specifically traditional fantasy writers, it narrows D&D's appeal to women.  Would you agree or disagree?

There, that should clear up any disagreements.  Thank you for your time.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hussar said:


> Name three female protagonists from fantasy written before 1970.




Even excluding mythology and legends, they're out there, but they're rare...and most of them were in short stories, not novels.

Thinking...Red Sonja appeared in comic form in 1973, inspired by the 1934 Robert E. Howard short story "The Shadow of the Vulture" in the form of the Red Sonya of Rogatino character.

C. L. Moore's Jirel of Joiry is out there as well, dating back to 1934's "Black God's Kiss."

The second book in Ursula K. LeGuin's Earthsea trilogy features Tenar, and was published in 1971.

_The Chronicles of Narnia_ feature several young women in heroic roles, as do, as I recall, the _Dragonriders of Pern _books.

Despite this, you are far more likely to find a female protagonist in early sci-fi than early fantasy.


----------



## Hussar

Ariosto said:


> Hussar, it's your choice to put such a value on the "RPG" term. Heck, you can insist on calling your preferred mode "wargames campaigns" (as D&D was originally billed) if you like.
> 
> However, calling people sexist because they distinguish games in which one plays the role of Oliver Twist from those in which one "plays the role" not even of Charles Dickens but instead (and in a purely functional sense) that of one of a committee of editors writing a story about Oliver Twist is ... just twisted!
> 
> It's at least as meaningful a distinction as what has arisen between RPGs and wargames, or any of myriad other taxonomies. As people recognize the emergence of a new form and begin to treat it on its own terms, they naturally tend so to refer to it! The notion that it is somewhere better to remain lost in the shadow of another school seems to me pretty rare in such cases.




Heh, I had to go to the bathroom and cogitate on this to get your point.  This is why I asked before.  But, I think I get what you're saying.

In your three examples, the first one is a "role playing game"  because you are playing the part of Oliver.  The second one is a "role playing game" because you are playing Dickens.  The third, in your definition is not a "role playing game" because it does not satisfy your definition.

This is precisely my point.  You ARE being exclusionary.  You are basically saying that there is only one kind of role playing game and those other games, while they may be fine, are not really role playing games.  Thus, in the Forgist sense (which I hate Forgisms cos I always use them wrong) Narativist games aren't really role playing games because the players have editorial control.  

Me, I figure the umbrella of RPG is a much bigger umbrella and has no problems whatsoever including all kinds of games, including some Euro board games which are pretty damn close to an RPG.  Meh, why not include them.

But you, you want to block them out.  They're not playing the "true" RPG.  This is exactly what I originally talked about.  How some in the hobby want to close the doors against anything they personally don't like.  That those who don't play the game in a specific, limited way, just aren't doing it right.


----------



## S'mon

rgard said:


> I think you read 'cisgender' in one of Proserpine's posts.  I found it on Wikipedia:
> 
> Cisgender - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> [Cisgender (IPA: /ˈsɪsdʒɛndə˞/) is an adjective used in the context of gender issues and counselling to refer to a class of gender identities formed by a match between an individual's gender identity and the behavior or role considered appropriate for one's sex.[1] Cisgender is a "newer term" that means "someone who is comfortable in the gender they were assigned at birth."[2] "Cisgender" is used to contrast "transgender" on the gender spectrum.]
> 
> My thanks to Proserpine as her post and your response prompted me to look this up...and I learned something!
> 
> Thanks,
> Rich




Ah, right.  Thanks.


----------



## Spatula

Campbell said:


> That's a faulty basis of comparison because males experience appearance oversensitivity in different ways than females. Dudes aren't supposed to be waifs, they're supposed to be strong and athletic so they don't stop eating - they become obsessed with working out. How many dudes have you met that spend 3-4 hrs a day working out when its not related to their jobs?



None.

But you know, I do know a lot of out of waifs.  I'm a skinny dude who's never been to a real gym myself.  Not being ripped is not an impediment to male self-image, or in finding a mate; the social pressure to look a certain way just is not there in the same degree that it is on women.  Men have different pressures to deal with.

I do know many, many women who have struggled with eating disorders at some point in their lives.  And that's just the ones who have confided that information to me.  Not everyone is ok discussing bouts of mental illness, so I'm sure there's a lot more instances of it in people that I know, that I am simply unaware of.  I've never heard of anyone hiding their gym-going habits.


----------



## S'mon

Mallus said:


> I've written more egalitarian settings in the past. Heck, my last one, which was partly a parody of swords and sorcery conventions, complete with deliberate sexism and racism had stronger female NPC's. What gets my goat is that in the setting where I didn't think about gender roles, in automatically made the world about guys (in a manner of speaking).




I remember that female players of mine who complained about perceived institutional sexism in my regular Gygaxian medievalesque campaign world, had no problem with sexism when I ran a short Conan campaign for them.  In fact they relished playing butt-kicking barbarian women who rapidly acquired nubile young male companions.


----------



## S'mon

Hussar said:


> I haven't read the whole thread yet, but this hit me as I finished page three and I wanted to get it out.
> 
> Gaming is a male dominated hobby.  That's factually true.  So, it can't really avoid being sexist - when 4/5ths of your audience is male, you're going to cater to that audience.  That's not so much sexism as just business.
> 
> However, trying to claim that there is no gender bias in the fans is not true IMO.  Think about it for a second.  When did the demographics of gaming change?  When the Storyteller system came out.  Vampire did far more to make the hobby accessable to women than D&D ever did.
> 
> Yet, even today, we have posters, multiple posters, telling all and sundry that storyteller, or narative to use the Forgism, games, "aren't really roleplaying".  They're not "true" roleplaying games.  They should be called something else, since, after all, anyone who plays these games aren't actually engaging in role playing.
> 
> I've seen posts exactly like that multiple times just in the past few weeks, never mind in the dark ages of the early hobby times.
> 
> So, how can that not be considered sexist and exclusionary?  When male gamers publicly argue that the games that female gamers often prefer aren't "real" rpg's and don't really belong, how can that not be considered sexist?




Vampire-style 'storyteller' RPGs are just regular RPGs with a stronger emphasis on plot (which can become railroading), mood & feel, rather than exploration/challenge.  If they differ from D&D it's in placing more emphasis on how your PC feels, rather than what they do.  They're still 'I am a vampire', just like D&D's 'I am a Fighter'. 

These White Wolf 'Storyteller' RPGs have nothing to do with Forge-ist Narrativist games, which are arguably not RPGs because the 'players' are more like authors or directors creating a story from Premise.


----------



## S'mon

Ycore Rixle said:


> Human nature makes male brains and female brains different (on average, saying nothing about an individual).




It's important to keep both those points in mind - (1) that men and women are different on average and (2) some women are more like men, and some men are more like women, in various ways.

For some reason many people deny one of these, either claiming that women are inherently the same as men, or that women are inherently all different from men.  For instance, women have about 1/10 the violent crime rate of men, which is very important information to know if you're walking a city street at night.  At the same time, some women are more violent than some men.


----------



## S'mon

Re testosterone making you better at math, seems unlikely.  In my school in Northern Ireland, I was in the top class for math, and it was 90% girls.  So was the top class for English.  Only in Physics & Chemistry was there anything like sex parity.  Cultural factors may have been at work in the girls doing so much better at math than the boys.  OTOH male and female brains certainly are somewhat different.


----------



## Ariosto

> 1. Do you advocate that D&D should continue to focus its inspiration on traditional fantasy (Tolkien, Moorcock, Lieber, etc)?



What does "etc" mean to you? How wide are the horizons of your "traditional fantasy"? I submit that the "focus of inspiration" in D&D originally, to the limited degree that such a focus is readily identifiable, was the Western reaches of the perennial Ocean of Story. Look at the list of monsters in Volume 2; the majority go back centuries, if not millennia. There are creatures (or at least interpretations thereof) such as the vampire and the walking mummy (and Dunsany's Gnoles) that are more modern, and "blobs" more modern still ... but most have roots in Mediterranean or European mythology and folklore. Do I think that D&D should be cut off from those roots? No! I would rather see continued the process of including *more* figures from the ancient and ageless stories of the world. Unfortunately, those are not anyone's "intellectual property" -- so I hardly expect Hasbro to have the interest in them that the hobbyists who created D&D had.



> 2.  Do you believe that new fantasy has anything to add to the hobby?  And, if so, what?



What it has been adding from the start: sources of inspiration. If memory serves, the appearance of the rust monster and several others was based on some little plastic toys from China; comic books and television shows, knicknacks, a shower curtain ... all sorts of things have been grists for the mills of imagination in adding bits to D&D.



> 3. Do you believe that D&D, as it was originally created, borrowed heavily from traditional fantasy sources (as well as others such as myth and whatnot)?



See #1 above.



> 4. I believe that by focusing the hobby on certain genre titles and writers, specifically traditional fantasy writers, it narrows D&D's appeal to women. Would you agree or disagree?



I believe that this trend -- which I have seen ever more prominently starting late in the 1E era (with Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms) -- lessens D&D's appeal to a wide variety of people. As to DL in particular, though, the effect I saw at first hand was brisk sales of the novels to females (and others!) not much interested in the game products. It may be that the trend in fact attracts more than it turns off. On principle, I hypothesize that WotC's rules-heavy approach probably has the opposite effect. From a commercial standpoint, at least from the perspective of such a large and diversified firm as Hasbro, it may be more profitable to maximize appeal to a focused demographic than to weaken that by strengthening a more diverse appeal. It does not seem to consider my cash (or that of others it has turned away) "green" enough. Fortunately, there are creative minds ready (whether for profit or for free) to supply what demand they can.


----------



## S'mon

resistor said:


> Actually, stuff like this is really, REALLY hard to test impartially.
> 
> One of my best friends from college is now a doctoral candidate in psychology, and he's done a lot of work on "stereotype threat" (if I remember the term correctly) in male vs. female testing like this.
> 
> The basic observation is that, if you're measuring how well females do at a stereotypically male-dominated subject (as, mathematics), they will score measurably worse if they take the test in a room mixed with male subjects, or with a male proctor.
> 
> Like I said, really REALLY hard to measure.




That stereotype threat is real, does not mean that there are not underlying differences in group performance too, though.  You can increase performance gaps by telling people that they're part of a poor-performing group right before they take the test.  That is not the same as saying you can eliminate performance gaps by doing the reverse.


----------



## Ariosto

> Despite this, you are far more likely to find a female protagonist in early sci-fi than early fantasy.



A clear distinction between the two, in particular a mutual exclusion, did not (from what I saw) figure in D&D of the 1970s-80s -- but it seems to have become rather entrenched in some quarters of today's D&D fandom.


----------



## S'mon

Ycore Rixle said:


> I haven't read that blog, so I can't speak for it.
> 
> Please check out these slides from Stephen Pinker. He's a psychology professor at Harvard, or was the last time I looked.
> 
> Of course, they're slides from a debate. So you can check out the other side, too.
> 
> But there is a long, famous history of studies showing sex differences in cognitive ability.




It's often considered Politically Incorrect to talk about it, though...

A friend of my family is Paul Erwing, who did a famous study with Richard Lynn finding a 3 point IQ gap between adult British men & women.  Which is a Politically Incorrect finding - but in any case it's really a very small gap compared to the large variations you find between different nations & ethnies, and is dependent on the weighting assigned to different elements (verbal, visuospatial) in the test.


----------



## S'mon

Ariosto said:


> On principle, I hypothesize that WotC's rules-heavy approach probably has the opposite effect.




Yes, I've seen this first hand at my games club.  The crunch turns off players who want to play a role without worrying about all the tactical optimised square-counting and powers use.  Some of those are male*, but IME a high proportion of female gamers feel that way.

*Including me - at any rate, I think the crunch is way OTT.  I can do my own PC's action in a few seconds, but having to weight 15 minutes for the next guy to do his super-optimised turn is really annoying.


----------



## Starfox

roguerouge said:


> So? You're going to need more evidence than that to claim that the thread is sexist, let alone that it's VERY sexist.




I think that's my claim originally. And to me, its obvious that Witch Girls is sexist because it caters exclusively to one gender. But what I was trying to say was that in this case, this is a GOOD THING. It is empowering. And from this, I want to infer that sexism is only bad when we take offense at it.

Is it sexism for a man to hold open a door for a woman? Yes. Is it bad? It might be if done in a condensating manner, but generally it is just polite. 

From this, I want to move on to say that "boys club" gaming can also be ok. Its not likely to recruit women into the hobby, but that's not making it bad or evil.

Of course, we all take offense at different things. There are people who take offense at Witch Girls or Boy's Club gaming. I don't want these people to win out - that would feel oppressive to me - but I think they have the right to say what they want and to be countered and debated and hopefully proven wrong. Ideas need to clash. That's how societies grow and values evolve and what makes threads like this one worthwhile.


----------



## ryryguy

I've read the thread. A lot of interesting discussion.

I agree that the current incarnation of the rules is not particularly sexist, and that the current artwork and marketing of D&D, while perhaps not perfect, is certainly worlds better than it has been in the past.

But why does the "boys' club" aspect of D&D persist? Why still such a gender imbalance among players - 80/20 in Rouse's best case scenario?

When I think about this, I have a hard time disentangling general gender relations in society at large, including instutionalized sexism, and the specific reputation of D&D and its impact on small group dynamics of gamers and how encounters between gamers and "outsiders" play out. This has been touched on tangentially in this thread but not really drawn out, I don't think.

For a number of reasons, not least the sexist 70's-era tropes from the roots of the game, D&D got tagged in the mainstream as an activity for geeky guys. That may be starting to shift a bit, but it's inevitably going to lag behind whatever changes have taken place in the rules and marketing. Thinking about potential new, young players, I think that just raises a big barrier to entry for girls and young women. 

In a nutshell, to the extent that D&D is perceived as "uncool", those numberless teenage hordes who above all else desperately want to be cool will avoid it. There are of course just as many boys as well as girls who fall into this category, but add in the preconception that D&D is a boy's club, male pursuit, and I think the repellent effect will be stronger for girls.

Then, back to the young males who are actually playing. When they encounter an "eww, you play D&D, how stupid!" reaction from a "cool" peer girl, it's going to make them feel defensive. They may expect all girls will have the same attitude and seek to exclude them to protect themselves from further hurt feelings. Thus, the "boy's club" perception may be pushed further towards reality. It's a pernicious dynamic, a self-fulfilling prophecy.

These are of course generalizations, not universal truths, but they do conform with some of my experiences. Again I'm talking in particular about younger players here - I think as players get older and generally less insecure, this dynamic eases. Anecdotally, women seem to have greater representation as the demographic gets older. 

Finally, that sort of "you're lame" - "no, you're lame!" in-group/out-group dynamic forming around D&D does not always or exclusively break along gender lines. Not by any means. I just have a feeling that it's common for it to play out that way.  Who knows, assuming that I'm not totally off base here, this might well be reflecting deeper sexist dynamics of the larger culture in the end.


----------



## Starfox

An interesting litterary case here is Orlando Furioso, published in 1532. It is the apex - and travesty - of the chivalric novel. While it has mainly male knights and female enchantresses, there are several strong female knights in it, as well as gender-transformations and love both homo- and heterosexual. And interracial/religious too, for that matter.

In Sicily at least, these stories are very much alive in the local puppet theaters. See them if you go there!

Anyway, what I wanted to say is that literature has cases of gender-role breakdown (or egalitarianism as we'd say today) long before modern times.


----------



## Lwaxy

Canis said:


> For example, it doesn't hold water at all at young ages.  They won't admit it, but teenage boys are massively preoccupied with their "look."




Very interesting. I thought my son was the only one - but he openly admits it. Out of his clique, he is the only one to have a good appearance, wears after shave and has his hair all perfect. Maybe that is why he has 3 girlfriends.


----------



## vagabundo

S'mon said:


> It's important to keep both those points in mind - (1) that men and women are different on average and (2) some women are more like men, and some men are more like women, in various ways.
> 
> For some reason many people deny one of these, either claiming that women are inherently the same as men, or that women are inherently all different from men.  For instance, women have about 1/10 the violent crime rate of men, which is very important information to know if you're walking a city street at night.  At the same time, some women are more violent than some men.




I've always found this misleading as, I believe, the difference between individuals within a gender is greater than the difference between the averages. So the averages tell us nothing useful about the capabilities of a population of a gender.

We have social norms that are a far greater influence than the minute differences between body chemistries. We are far more alike than different.


----------



## S'mon

vagabundo said:


> I've always found this misleading as, I believe, the difference between individuals within a gender is greater than the difference between the averages. So the averages tell us nothing useful about the capabilities of a population of a gender.




I think that statement is wrong.   If "the difference between individuals within a gender is greater than the difference between the averages" means "the average man is more X (eg, violent) than the average woman, but some women are more X than the average man" then it's just a restatement of what I just said.  And it does not then  follow that "the averages tell us nothing useful about the capabilities of a population of a gender".

Eg: On average, women are less strong and aggressive than men.  OTOH, some women are stronger and more aggressive than the average man.  From this fact, many others follow, such as the disparity in violent crime rates I mentioned.

When dealing with groups of people, knowledge about the averages is very useful. When dealing with individuals, it may be misleading (hence why stereotyping has a bad rap).

So, it is not true that "the averages tell us nothing useful about the capabilities of a population of a gender" but it is true that "the averages are not determinative of the capabilities of an individual among that population".

Edit:  If the statement is a claim that differences between the population averages are trivially small compared to the average difference between two randomly chosen individuals from the whole population, that would depend on what factor we're talking about.  It would not be true of eg upper body strength.  It may be true of other factors, such as propensity to violence.  Yet where that factor is normally distributed, even a small difference can have big effects at the tails.  Because few people commit violent crime, a small decrease in average propensity to aggression among a population can result in a big decrease in committing of violent crime.


----------



## vagabundo

@ S'mon, I agree with everything in your post above. 

However - there is always a however, eh? - the reason that I think the averages tell us nothing useful is because I cannot use the averages to tell *me* anything about an individual. They maybe useful for governments in planning or for doctors or for other prefessional planners than need to take these factors into account when making discions that will affect a large population of people. I dont think I spelt this out clearly in my previous post.

But for me on a day to day basis these averages tell me nothing about the mental capabilites, physical or emotional state of a person that I only have the race or gender off.

In my job I have to go regularly meet people that I have no met before. I usually have a name and maybe some extra details about them. I can usually guess gender and maybe race - to some extent -  from the name, but knowing these details does not help me at all, until I've met and assessed them personnally. Then I'd have a good idea about some of there capabilities. 

That is the only point that I wish to make. I'm not claiming that these average differences do not exist, just that the majority of people should forget that they do as they are of no use to them at all. Preconceptions like "men cant multitask" or "blondes are dumb*", maybe they are founded on some averages somewhere, but are really useless in day to day life 


*this is a silly example, no offence intended to any blondes out there.


----------



## S'mon

vagabundo said:


> @ S'mon, I agree with everything in your post above.
> 
> However - there is always a however, eh? - the reason that I think the averages tell us nothing useful is because I cannot use the averages to tell *me* anything about an individual. They maybe useful for governments in planning or for doctors or for other prefessional planners than need to take these factors into account when making discions that will affect a large population of people.




They may also be useful to businessses - companies making and selling Role Playing Games, for instance.  

When it comes to individuals, knowledge of the averages is useful when you don't have anything better to go on.  If you're on the street alone at night and you're afraid of being mugged, you know on average it's safer to walk past the strange woman (or group of women) than the strange man (or group of men).  That's in the absence of further information.  Clothing, demeanour etc might indicate that the women are actually more likely to be dangerous.

"That man looks dangerous - but it's sexist to think like that!  Women can be dangerous too.  I'll walk past him!" is not a good survival strategy.


----------



## shilsen

Doug McCrae said:


> Any featuring drow? The most perverse and evil society Gary could imagine was one where women are in charge.




Heh! I wasn't even bringing up the drow because they're such an easy target, not to mention one which has been beaten on often enough. I've heard all the explanations for it, but the fact that the most famous and visible matriarchy in D&D happens to be eeeevil is a little much of a coincidence for me.



Bumbles said:


> Careful, it seems like you're saying racism and other discrimination is ok in games, but not if it's gender-based.  I really hope you didn't intend to open up that particular quagmire.




No, that's not what I was saying, though I should have dropped racism from my list to be clearer (since I was using race in the D&D sense, not the real-world version). I was responding to comments which seemed to assume that by advocating removing sexism I was saying that no campaign setting should ever deal with discrimination in game, which is absolutely not my intent. What I was saying was that games can explore discrimination which doesn't map onto real-world discrimination and which especially doesn't treat real-world discrimination as the norm. For example, the tried and true trope of elves and dwarves not getting along with each other. That's something which can be in a game and allows one to explore discrimination, if one wants to, without it having to be real-world discrimination. 



> Only if one believed that the USA created the Chimpanzees.  I'm sorry, but your analogy is just so illogical you should be hit with a wet trout.  Your comments would be far better without such an obviously unsupported comparison.




Fair enough. It was a hyperbolic analogy, but mainly because I was trying to illustrate how hyperbolic and illogical I think the argument I was commenting on is.



> How?   Leaving off that bit is kind of a problem, even if you have mentioned it before in bits of pieces, if you're going to bring up the advice again, a specific path here would improve your words considerably.




Well, this thread was originally intended to start a discussion about the existence of sexism in D&D, but you're right that offering some solutions might be in order. I'll post some shortly.



> There's a bit here:
> 
> Half Sigma: Biological basis for sex differences in math ability
> 
> I'm sure there's lots of other studies you can find.
> 
> Note, I am explicitly and sincerely not interested in arguing the merits of this, I'm merely posting this to acknowledge the existence, and I do not wish to get into a discussion of the subject here.  So I won't.




Thanks for the qualifier. In that case I won't argue about it and will just state my position, which is: (a) I don't buy it, and (b) even if it were true, I think it's irrelevant.



Canis said:


> Prenatal environment and hormonal effects was actually my field for a few years, and I can tell you that's a pretty impressive load of tripe.  I'm trying to track down the primary sources on it and keep coming up with nothing but contradictions.




That's not my field at all, but it certainly seems like a load of tripe to me too.



vagabundo said:


> However - there is always a however, eh? - the reason that I think the averages tell us nothing useful is because I cannot use the averages to tell *me* anything about an individual.
> 
> ...
> 
> But for me on a day to day basis these averages tell me nothing about the mental capabilites, physical or emotional state of a person that I only have the race or gender off.
> 
> ...
> 
> 
> That is the only point that I wish to make. I'm not claiming that these average differences do not exist, just that the majority of people should forget that they do as they are of no use to them at all.




And that's basically my take on the subject too.

And, that said, now I have to come up with a post of suggestions for ways in which sexism can be diminished or ameliorated. Be back in a bit.


----------



## Upper_Krust

S'mon said:
			
		

> Re testosterone making you better at math, seems unlikely.  In my school in Northern Ireland, *I was in the top class for math*...




...aren't you the same DM who doubled Lolth's (1E) 66hp on her home plane to 122hp.


----------



## Aus_Snow

shilsen said:


> Thanks for the qualifier. In that case I won't argue about it and will just state my position, which is: (a) *I don't buy it*, and (b) even if it were true, I think it's irrelevant.



Neither do I, fwiw. Why? Oh, because it ended up concluding nothing at all regarding the issue brought up in this thread. That's not my opinion, that's fact. Just going on the text that is there, kinda thing. As in, all of it. Including the latter part, in other words.

And as for that Uni debate, I found each set of slides approximately equally compelling. That is to say, not very. I don't know the answer one way or the other, so I'm keeping an open mind to biological, sociological, or biological/sociological as the 'culprit' here. I have a strong suspicion it's the second or third one, and a sense (based on anecdotal stuff mainly, I guess) that it's the second, but I _don't know_. And neither does anyone else, it seems. That I've heard, read, seen, etc.


----------



## shilsen

upper_krust said:


> ...aren't you the same dm who doubled lolth's (1e) 66hp on her home plane to 122hp.



Ooooh - BURN!!!!


----------



## shilsen

*A FOLLOW-UP – SOLUTIONS:*

Since someone made a reasonable suggestion above that it would be helpful to suggest solutions to the sexism which I see as existing in D&D, I figured I should try to post something to that end. I thought about it for a bit and figured I would divide it into two parts. The first would be for people who don’t want to deal with issues of sexism at all and (presumably) just make the game world not an inherently sexist one, so they can get on with, well, the game. The second would be for people who do explicitly want to engage with the issue of sexism but do so without actually being sexist themselves. So, having established the two categories I’m using, here are a few of my suggestions.

*When you don’t want to deal with sexism at all:*
1 – Make the primary game societies non-sexist: This is a pretty simple thing to do. When you have societies which your PCs will inhabit and deal with on a regular basis, simply don’t make them sexist. Have men and women equally valued and influential in society, so that nobody thinks twice about the fact that a country is ruled by a king or a queen, or bats an eyelid when the ruler’s consort is male or the general of the army is female. Have pantheons which aren’t skewed towards any one gender. And so on.

2 – Have similar gender representation in NPCs: When your PCs see and interact with NPCs, try to have roughly equal numbers of men and women present. Don’t have all the movers and shakers be male (or female, for that matter). If it’s perfectly fine for some PCs to be female, then don’t have the female NPCs in the society be under the thumb of the patriarchy, since that immediately makes the PC’s gender very important and her position very different. When the PCs have allies and enemies, let them sometimes be male and sometimes female, with neither seeming special and different from the norm. 

3 – Don’t treat female PCs (and players) differently than male PCs (and players): I don’t think this needs much explanation, does it?

4 – When using standard fantasy tropes, vary the genders: There are tons of standard plots and tropes from fantasy, literature and myth which tend to show up in D&D games. When using them, just don’t use the same gender positions every time. Maybe the PCs have to rescue a captured princess. And maybe they have to rescue a captured prince. Both of them work. 

*When you do want to engage with and think about sexism and gender roles:
*1 – Think about how gender could be different in a D&D society: Give some serious thought to how the existence of non-real-world elements would affect and change the societies of your game. How does the fact that the most accomplished of men and women are exactly as strong, durable, dexterous, smart, wise and charismatic as each other change society? How does the existence of magic affect society? How does the existence of multiple intelligent species in the same world change society? How does the fact that some species live longer than others, that some are shorter, that some don’t sleep, that some can fly, etc. affect their societies? How does the fact that some of these species can interbreed affect society? There is no one answer. But there are a lot of plausible answers which are creative, interesting and far more so, in my estimation, than just assuming that such a world will be like medieval Europe. And once you consider such answers and ramifications, consider how gender might be treated in such a society or societies. For example, if running an Eberron game, I would consider what people might think of gender in a world where a species (changelings, doppelgangers) can change their gender at will or have no gender at all (warforged). And how that is mediated by the fact that D&D magic allows people to change their gender in appearance (using spells like Change Self, Disguise Self) and/or physically (polymorph). 

2 – Have variety in your gender roles and sexism: Come up with different gender roles and, if you plan to have sexism, forms of sexism among different societies. Maybe the dwarves are a species where women are few and far between, which means they are essentially forced to remain at home and have offspring, and where an adventuring female PC dwarf would be ostracized by her clan. Maybe elves have a matriarchal structure where women are always the leaders, whether in politics or in war, since they believe that women are inherently more rational and better at short-term tactics as well as long-term strategy. Maybe gnomes naturally have no gender at all, with every gnome capable of giving birth, which it does in an asexual manner by growing a little bud on the back of its head which is removed and planted in the breeding garden so as to bloom into a new little gnome. And maybe societies where various species’ interact with each other have a hodge-podge of competing and contrasting gender roles all flowing through, around and into each other. In short, have some creativity and variety and don’t treat real world gender roles and sexism as the norm.

3 – Explore the ramifications of gender roles in your different game-world societies: Following on the point made in the previous paragraph, explore – and let PCs interact with and perhaps affect – the results of gender roles (and, if necessary, sexism) in the various societies which make up the world. Maybe the result of the dwarven society is extreme objectification of women, where they are treated less like individuals and more like valuable objects to be hoarded or traded away. Maybe the result of the elven society is the creation of males who are utterly faithful and will follow any order from a woman, but who also lack initiative and identity. Maybe the result of the gnome biology is that they play male and female roles when interacting with humans, partly to fit in and partly to manipulate humans based on the latters’ preconceptions. Have matriarchies. Have patriarchies. Have societies where gender doesn’t matter. And again, don’t treat one as inherently better or more natural or logical than the others.

* * * * *
I threw the above together in just 15 minutes of thinking about the subject, so pardon me if they’re not the best thought-out or creative solutions. But I hope they’re at least a decent starting point for thinking about the subject and how it can be dealt with in interesting ways. 

Thoughts and feedback?

A caveat: I should note that the above is purely focusing on sexism and gender roles because that’s the premise of this thread. The same can be done with just about any other –ism, of course.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I like the description of sexism as being about "keeping the status quo". Sure, fantasy might have been male-dominated. But why should we keep that status quo? Is fantasy less fun with less male dominance? 

Where the game comes from, and where it will lead to can be different things. Things change. Change might not always good, but the status quo can always be improved upon.



Hussar said:


> I haven't read the whole thread yet, but this hit me as I finished page three and I wanted to get it out.
> 
> Gaming is a male dominated hobby.  That's factually true.  So, it can't really avoid being sexist - when 4/5ths of your audience is male, you're going to cater to that audience.  That's not so much sexism as just business.
> 
> However, trying to claim that there is no gender bias in the fans is not true IMO.  Think about it for a second.  When did the demographics of gaming change?  When the Storyteller system came out.  Vampire did far more to make the hobby accessable to women than D&D ever did.
> 
> Yet, even today, we have posters, multiple posters, telling all and sundry that storyteller, or narative to use the Forgism, games, "aren't really roleplaying".  They're not "true" roleplaying games.  They should be called something else, since, after all, anyone who plays these games aren't actually engaging in role playing.
> 
> I've seen posts exactly like that multiple times just in the past few weeks, never mind in the dark ages of the early hobby times.
> 
> So, how can that not be considered sexist and exclusionary?  When male gamers publicly argue that the games that female gamers often prefer aren't "real" rpg's and don't really belong, how can that not be considered sexist?



whoandwhy99 are you talking about?


----------



## shilsen

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I like the description of sexism as being about "keeping the status quo".




Hi, Mustrum. I was wondering when you would show up.



> Sure, fantasy might have been male-dominated. But why should we keep that status quo? Is fantasy less fun with less male dominance?




Unfortunately, for some people (hopefully not the majority), I think the answers to those questions are "Because it's the status quo" and "Yes." Obviously, I don't buy t.



> Where the game comes from, and where it will lead to can be different things. Things change. Change might not always good, but the status quo can always be improved upon.




The Archchancellor speaks truth.



> whoandwhy99 are you talking about?




And the Archchancellor is a bad, bad man


----------



## Desdichado

shilsen said:


> What do you think?



I think your proposal, that D&D is inherently sexist and that's because our society is inherently sexist, are both flat-out wrong.

Oddly, you didn't even really attempt to build a case for it either; you pointed out a few examples that you had to have gone way out of your way to find, and a couple of odd characterizations of the "ENWorld vibe" when someone reveals that they're a woman, etc.

The null hypothesis isn't that we're all sexist and therefore activist marketing by WotC is required to cure us of our ills.  First, you've got to do a _much_ better job in building a convincing case that this is a real problem and not just a few chip on their shoulder activists who like complaining.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

pawsplay said:


> Let me put it this way. If you are black, you do not get to choose if your ethnic heritage is considered important by other people.




This is, to a certain extent, what I was trying to get at when I stated that men cannot understand what it feels like to a woman to live in a sexist world, because they don't experience it.

I agree that you can empathise with it, you can try to understand it, but it's not ever going to be the same experience.

For myself, I'm aware of my privilege as a man in the UK, and I choose some of the activities I get involved in to fight against the problems that I see in our society by attending rallies and marches that are Pro-Feminist.


----------



## ExploderWizard

Sexism has not been a problem in our particular expanded group. We have had female players at the table in various campaigns over the years and these issues never came up. Tastes in fantasy art vary from person to person but I don't recall gaming with anyone (male or female) that couldn't deal with the cheesecake/beefcake silliness and not be able to have a chuckle and move on. 

I can understand that someone actually being made unwelcome in a group over sexist issues might have a different point of view but approaching gaming with a pre-existing political chip on one's shoulder about the issue won't do much to help the situation.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Doug McCrae said:


> Any featuring drow? The most perverse and evil society Gary could imagine was one where women are in charge.




Which neatly gives us evidence that, however indirectly, sexism has been present in the game since the early days.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost

Lwaxy said:


> Very interesting. I thought my son was the only one - but he openly admits it. Out of his clique, he is the only one to have a good appearance, wears after shave and has his hair all perfect. Maybe that is why he has 3 girlfriends.



There are actually a bunch of books coming out on teenage boys right now that underline these issues in a big way.

We severely underestimate the social, nearly tribal, elements of male behavior at that age.  Anti-social behavior is often an attempt to be pro-social in their peer group.  It is both funny and sad.


----------



## vagabundo

S'mon said:


> They may also be useful to businessses - companies making and selling Role Playing Games, for instance.
> 
> When it comes to individuals, knowledge of the averages is useful when you don't have anything better to go on.  If you're on the street alone at night and you're afraid of being mugged, you know on average it's safer to walk past the strange woman (or group of women) than the strange man (or group of men).  That's in the absence of further information.  Clothing, demeanour etc might indicate that the women are actually more likely to be dangerous.
> 
> "That man looks dangerous - but it's sexist to think like that!  Women can be dangerous too.  I'll walk past him!" is not a good survival strategy.




I think it is dangerous to mix possible sociological factors with genetic/biological factors and a media-heightened sense of paranoia. What is your real chance of mugged on that street? Probably a lot lower than you think, in fact, it is probably negligible considering how many people are walking home at that time, but it does happen obviously.

I'm guessing - hard to qualify IMO - but most violent criminality is due to social factors and not a testosterone fueled preposition to violence. And drug-addiction makes it all worse.

Being a realist I know I live in a society were people  jump to instant judgments on others based on cleanliness, demeanor, type of clothing being worn, gender and race. It varies depending on location, when I'm away I dont feel  have the warning signals that I feel I have here in Dublin. But I'll bet I'm wrong far more than I'm right, but it is a risk assessment. I pled guilty of pigeon-holing people. 

If I'm walking home drunk from the pub at night and see a crowd of lads hanging about I'll probably cross over the road. They could be the nicest lads out there, but I'm going to put some distance between me and them.

And on the other side, I've noticed that younger girls now are driving like loons and violence crime from females is on the rise - anecdotal assuredly. I'm guessing social factors mixed with drink and drugs are to blame, or just me getting old and grouchy.

I think what I'm saying - after all that rambling - is that a persons potential (for good and eeevil) is not limited in any sense by gender, I think genetics and social factors are far, far more important.


----------



## shilsen

Hobo said:


> I think your proposal, that D&D is inherently sexist and that's because our society is inherently sexist, are both flat-out wrong.
> 
> Oddly, you didn't even really attempt to build a case for it either; you pointed out a few examples that you had to have gone way out of your way to find, and a couple of odd characterizations of the "ENWorld vibe" when someone reveals that they're a woman, etc.




I'm curious whether you think that my argumentation was poor or whether you think that our society (and again, I'll restrict myself to the USA) is not actually sexist. If the former, then my only excuse is that I was starting a thread to discuss something I find interesting and worth consideration, so I limited myself to a length which allowed me to make my point without making it overlong. I could write a manifesto which would explore in detail how pervasive I think sexism is in our society and gaming, but then nobody would bother to read through all of it and this conversation, which I think is at least interesting and hopefully productive, wouldn't have happened.

If you do mean, however, that you really don't believe that our society is sexist, then I can't really argue with you, because evidently your worldview and manner of seeing things is so different from mine that I don't think I could persuade you to see my POV. Let's just say that every day in the USA I see evidence in my own life and in what I hear or read about that we live in a heavily sexist society. Apparently some people on this thread (pawsplay, roguerouge and Mathew_Freeman being just three names which come to mind) agree. You clearly do not. And if the world around you doesn't make you see it, I'm quite certain that I cannot.



> The null hypothesis isn't that we're all sexist and therefore activist marketing by WotC is required to cure us of our ills.  First, you've got to do a _much_ better job in building a convincing case that this is a real problem and *not just a few chip on their shoulder activists who like complaining*.




I see. Clearly we shall have to beg to differ on this point.



ExploderWizard said:


> I can understand that someone actually being made unwelcome in a group over sexist issues might have a different point of view but approaching gaming with a pre-existing political chip on one's shoulder about the issue won't do much to help the situation.




Why would you assume that I'm approaching gaming with a pre-existing chip on my shoulder? Is it that far-fetched that I might have come to this conclusion on the basis of over a decade of gaming and seeing how it is presented, marketed and played, plus my experience of gaming discussions on forums such as ENWorld?


----------



## ExploderWizard

shilsen said:


> Why would you assume that I'm approaching gaming with a pre-existing chip on my shoulder? Is it that far-fetched that I might have come to this conclusion on the basis of over a decade of gaming and seeing how it is presented, marketed and played, plus my experience of gaming discussions on forums such as ENWorld?




I'm not assuming anything, and I didn't even mention you. My point was that if one (anyone) approaches something (gaming) and starts digging around for evidence of any type of "ism" then the chances of finding something are very good indeed. The basic point is that gaming is an activity participated in by people. Whatever social issues we have as people will be brought into such activities. If a gaming group has people in it that are fixated on sexist issues then sexism will be a problem for that group. It's impossible to stamp out the issues we have as human beings by altering the presentation/marketing of products. That's all I was trying to say, I meant no offense.


----------



## shilsen

ExploderWizard said:


> I'm not assuming anything, and I didn't even mention you. My point was that if one (anyone) approaches something (gaming) and starts digging around for evidence of any type of "ism" then the chances of finding something are very good indeed. The basic point is that gaming is an activity participated in by people. Whatever social issues we have as people will be brought into such activities. If a gaming group has people in it that are fixated on sexist issues then sexism will be a problem for that group. It's impossible to stamp out the issues we have as human beings by altering the presentation/marketing of products. That's all I was trying to say, I meant no offense.



Ah, okay. I agree that it's impossible to stamp out these issues merely by altering the presentation/marketing of products. And I'm cynical enough to think that maybe we'll never completely stamp such issues out. But I think it's worthwhile to at least try to improve the situation, and in order to do that I think one needs to change the way things work in a myriad different areas. This thread is a small attempt to do so in one area, or at least get people to think about and engage with the subject. I don't think that's futile, even if it has little effect. 

And thanks for the clarification, BTW. No offense taken.


----------



## Proserpine

shilsen said:


> Thoughts and feedback?




I think it's great. Then again, I'm a proponent of the same ideas.


----------



## S'mon

Upper_Krust said:


> ...aren't you the same DM who doubled Lolth's (1E) 66hp on her home plane to 122hp.




In the immortals words of Barbie:  "_Math is hard_".


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

shilsen said:


> If you do mean, however, that you really don't believe that our society is sexist, then I can't really argue with you, because evidently your worldview and manner of seeing things is so different from mine that I don't think I could persuade you to see my POV. Let's just say that every day in the USA I see evidence in my own life and in what I hear or read about that we live in a heavily sexist society. Apparently some people on this thread (pawsplay, roguerouge and Mathew_Freeman being just three names which come to mind) agree. You clearly do not. And if the world around you doesn't make you see it, I'm quite certain that I cannot.




Thank you for the name check, particularly given how badly I put myself over with my first post in this thread!

The reason that I'm so interested in this thread, BTW, is that since getting together with my partner five years ago she's really opened my eyes to feminism and how it works, what it's about and what it's fighting against.

I'd happily point everyone in the direction of the The F-Word: Contemporary UK Feminism - The F-Word, which she blogs for, if they want to read on further about UK Feminism.

I do agree with shilsen, and I think this thread provides plenty of evidence both that gamers are pretty aware of the situation and want to change it, and that gamers are also blindly unaware of themselves, their actions, and how it makes other people feel. Gamers, of course, being a wide and varied lot, much like any other group of people that you care to lump together.


----------



## Proserpine

Mathew_Freeman said:


> I'd happily point everyone in the direction of the The F-Word: Contemporary UK Feminism - The F-Word, which she blogs for, if they want to read on further about UK Feminism.




I'm probably straying a little off-topic, but that's a very nice site. The blogging on there is great. 

Though it's more Americentric feminism, Shakesville is a nice site. And Tiger Beatdown, a feminist blog with only one contributor (who is hilarious), occassionally has some nice posts dissecting sci-fi stuff, along with other media.


----------



## Bumbles

shilsen said:


> No, that's not what I was saying, though I should have dropped racism from my list to be clearer (since I was using race in the D&D sense, not the real-world version). I was responding to comments which seemed to assume that by advocating removing sexism I was saying that no campaign setting should ever deal with discrimination in game, which is absolutely not my intent. What I was saying was that games can explore discrimination which doesn't map onto real-world discrimination and which especially doesn't treat real-world discrimination as the norm. For example, the tried and true trope of elves and dwarves not getting along with each other. That's something which can be in a game and allows one to explore discrimination, if one wants to, without it having to be real-world discrimination.




Um, that doesn't actually look like much of an improvement to me.  Let me put it another way, if you want to argue for caution in exploring certain themes in your games, that's one thing, but accepting some forms of discrimination but not others as fit for covering, well, I advise against saying it like that.  I think it comes out as a little bit discriminatory itself.  I know you're not trying to say that, but it can come across that way.  



> Fair enough. It was a hyperbolic analogy, but mainly because I was trying to illustrate how hyperbolic and illogical I think the argument I was commenting on is.




It really doesn't, as it doesn't serve as an effective analogy since it's really quite flawed.  Not in a minor way, but a fundamental one.  And you were doing so well up till then...



> Well, this thread was originally intended to start a discussion about the existence of sexism in D&D, but you're right that offering some solutions might be in order. I'll post some shortly.




Thanks.  So far I have nothing much to offer in the way of feedback on your suggestions, but I do appreciate you bringing them up.  Some of them would be quite workable, and you managed to avoid the particular bit I cautioned you about above.

So so far so good.  

Also, what did you think of the review of the campaign setting I linked to earlier?


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

S'mon said:


> I remember that female players of mine who complained about perceived institutional sexism in my regular Gygaxian medievalesque campaign world, had no problem with sexism when I ran a short Conan campaign for them.  In fact they relished playing butt-kicking barbarian women who rapidly acquired nubile young male companions.




I really have to disagree with this as an example of how women are as sexist as men.

Dealing with sexism in-game, when they are already dealing with it in their lives, wass not fun. Being told by the DM that a female character will find it harder to gain in-game credibility and power is a clear indication that the game is based on sexist principles. Given that the social set-up of the game is *entirely* within the hands of the DM, I can understand why they were unhappy with that situation.

In contrast, taking a few hours to be on the other side of the divide, to be the ones doing the oppressing and being the dominant force _within the bounds of a game_, is an entirely different prospect.


----------



## Desdichado

shilsen said:


> I'm curious whether you think that my argumentation was poor or whether you think that our society (and again, I'll restrict myself to the USA) is not actually sexist. If the former, then my only excuse is that I was starting a thread to discuss something I find interesting and worth consideration, so I limited myself to a length which allowed me to make my point without making it overlong. I could write a manifesto which would explore in detail how pervasive I think sexism is in our society and gaming, but then nobody would bother to read through all of it and this conversation, which I think is at least interesting and hopefully productive, wouldn't have happened.



Well, they're related, aren't they?  If I don't believe that our society is rampantly sexist, then I can't very well engage you in a discussion about a problem which I don't recognize.  If you don't put forward some particulars about what the problem is, then what am I supposed to be discussing with you?


			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> If you do mean, however, that you really don't believe that our society is sexist, then I can't really argue with you, because evidently your worldview and manner of seeing things is so different from mine that I don't think I could persuade you to see my POV. Let's just say that every day in the USA I see evidence in my own life and in what I hear or read about that we live in a heavily sexist society. Apparently some people on this thread (pawsplay, roguerouge and Mathew_Freeman being just three names which come to mind) agree. You clearly do not. And if the world around you doesn't make you see it, I'm quite certain that I cannot.



I suspect that you're probably right.  I'm not ancient, by any means, but I'm old enough that when someone describes "my" society in a way that contradicts my many years of experience with it, then I don't just go, "oh, wow, I've never thought of it that way before!" because, let's face it; I have thought of it that way before and rejected that claim as untenable with my experience.

I suppose what I don't like is the vibe, explicitly stated in Matthew_Freeman's post here, but really kinda running throughout the thread as a whole (as much of it as I've read anyway, which admittedly is far from the entire thing: 







> I do agree with shilsen, and I think this thread provides plenty of evidence both that gamers are pretty aware of the situation and want to change it, and that gamers are also blindly unaware of themselves, their actions, and how it makes other people feel.



So... either we're anti-sexism activists, or we're unaware and ignorant _people_ who are contributing to the problem.  What does _not_ seem to enter the realm of possibility for you is that I (and I consider myself a fairly representative gamer for my age group) am perfectly aware of what is and isn't sexist behavior and yet I still see no call for change in the gaming arena over all.  I don't believe products (in general) are sexist (in fact they're so deliberately non-sexist that it calls attention to itself, which is generally a sign of having gone too far as far as I'm concerned.)  I don't believe the people I game with are sexist.  I make no claims about the discussion on ENWorld in general, or about gamers other than those I know personally, because I've been posting very infrequently here the last few years, and besides, I'm neither responsible for their behavior, nor particularly interested in it either.

Now, if you had posited some specific situations that we could discuss, well, then we could have a discussion.  But since you haven't; you've merely claimed that there is a widespread problem that I don't see, and wanted to jump straight into talking about solutions, I'm having trouble engaging in the conversation.

Of course, I'd _love_ to have a conversation about sexism in our society overall (as opposed to limiting it to gaming) but due to the nature of this place, this is a _horrible_ venue for it.  I'd do it on Circvs Maximvs, though.


----------



## 1Mac

shilsen, this was way upthread, but I wanted to clarify. Earlier I wrote


> Joss Whedon, who is of course my master, nevertheless frequently skirts this line, and it is only because he is such a good writer that he usually avoids crossing it. Stuff like the Charlie's Angels remake, or Kiera Knightly's Gweneviere in that King Arthur movie, Keira Knightly's character in Pirates of the Caribbean ("Try wearing a corsette!") cross it with reckless, hilarious aplomb. My point being that if you are trying to correct for sexism, rather than create interesting characters, you frequently fall on your face.



To which you responded


> I'll agree about the preferred aim being to create interesting characters rather than simply correct for sexism, though I'm not sure I'd buy all your examples as successful ones. Joss, I agree, is brilliant at it most of the time.



This wildly misinterprets what I meant, though i concede that I could have been unclear. I meant the above as examples where the effort to create non-sexist characters at the expense of actual characterization goes terribly awry. The kinds of characters Keira Knightly tends to play are a caution to those who think removing sexism is an unalloyed good without any other consideration.

I would agree that the new Battlestar Galatica is a good example of getting it right. Ripley in the Alien franchise is also a good example.

Anyway, this thread has gotten way more gnarled and bifurcated since yesterday, such that I could not possibly absorb it all. But since I'm here, something I thought worth highlighting while I skimmed. Earlier I said that there is nothing inherently sexist in classic myth and fantasy, that their association with sexism depend on cultural factors that are no longer relevant today. A few people are saying that association is enough reason to purge those elements from fantasy in general and fantasy gaming in the specific.

Someone upthread said that this attitude, and not the attitude of fantasy preservationists, is what is exclusionary and divisive, and I think that is right. Writing fantasy from a more modern sensibility as far as gender goes is great, but that doesn't make classic fantasy tropes invalid simply because they may carry some sexist baggage. It doesn't even make them sexist.


----------



## Gentlegamer

What's wrong with being sexy?


----------



## S'mon

Mathew_Freeman said:


> I really have to disagree with this as an example of how women are as sexist as men.




It wasn't intended to be "an example of how women are as sexist as men".  It was an example of how sexism can be a problem sometimes (the regular game) but not others - the Conan game.   The reason K gave me was that in the regular game she felt constrained, in the Conan game she could do what she liked, ergo the sexism of the setting was not a problem.

Obviously I had absolutely no problem with K and L's PCs acquiring nubile young male companions in an inversion of the usual conquering-male-barbarian tropes.  I don't know if this was 'sexist' in some way, and I don't care.  They enjoyed it, I enjoyed it, it was fun.


----------



## Mallus

Gentlegamer said:


> What's wrong with being sexy?



Absolutely nothing.


----------



## S'mon

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Dealing with sexism in-game, when they are already dealing with it in their lives, wass not fun. Being told by the DM that a female character will find it harder to gain in-game credibility and power is a clear indication that the game is based on sexist principles. Given that the social set-up of the game is *entirely* within the hands of the DM, I can understand why they were unhappy with that situation.




On the bright side, that unpleasant experience caused me to develop some GMing techniques to help ensure that future female players IMCs wouldn't have their enjoyment affected by perceived sexism, and in two subsequent lengthy campaigns with several female players (including two Californians!) I've not had any complaints.


----------



## S'mon

double post


----------



## ExploderWizard

Gentlegamer said:


> What's wrong with being sexy?





Don't worry Nigel. It wasn't wasted. I got it.


----------



## shilsen

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Thank you for the name check, particularly given how badly I put myself over with my first post in this thread!




No problem. Not expressing oneself as clearly as one would want is par for the course on the internet, I think, and with a subject as complex (and potentially inflammatory) as this one I figure we can all cut each other a little slack.



Bumbles said:


> Um, that doesn't actually look like much of an improvement to me.  Let me put it another way, if you want to argue for caution in exploring certain themes in your games, that's one thing, but accepting some forms of discrimination but not others as fit for covering, well, I advise against saying it like that.  I think it comes out as a little bit discriminatory itself.  I know you're not trying to say that, but it can come across that way.




Okay. I think the rest of my posts on the thread make it clear I'm not trying to say that, of course, which you noted. I think my "solutions" post especially indicates that I think sexism is a subject which _can_ be fit for covering, and am just expressing a preference for it being handled in a more self-aware and non-exclusionary manner.



> It really doesn't, as it doesn't serve as an effective analogy since it's really quite flawed.  Not in a minor way, but a fundamental one.  And you were doing so well up till then...




Fair enough. I won't argue about that.



> Thanks.  So far I have nothing much to offer in the way of feedback on your suggestions, but I do appreciate you bringing them up.  Some of them would be quite workable, and you managed to avoid the particular bit I cautioned you about above.
> 
> So so far so good.




Thanks.  



> Also, what did you think of the review of the campaign setting I linked to earlier?




Whoops! I forgot to check that. I'll do so soon.



Hobo said:


> Well, they're related, aren't they?  If I don't believe that our society is rampantly sexist, then I can't very well engage you in a discussion about a problem which I don't recognize.  If you don't put forward some particulars about what the problem is, then what am I supposed to be discussing with you?




I'm not presuming that everyone is going to be interested in or able to engage in a discussion with me on the subject. More than a few people have popped in to say essentially "you're wrong" and left, and that's fine too. And if you fundamentally don't believe our society is sexist, then there's such a divergence in our base attitudes that I'm not sure there's much basis for discussion. Or at least not much in this forum on this subject.



> I suspect that you're probably right.  I'm not ancient, by any means, but I'm old enough that when someone describes "my" society in a way that contradicts my many years of experience with it, then I don't just go, "oh, wow, I've never thought of it that way before!" because, let's face it; I have thought of it that way before and rejected that claim as untenable with my experience.




Fair enough. That's obviously your right. But it does make it much less likely that you'll find this discussion particularly interesting or edifying, doesn't it?



> I suppose what I don't like is the vibe, explicitly stated in Matthew_Freeman's post here, but really kinda running throughout the thread as a whole (as much of it as I've read anyway, which admittedly is far from the entire thing:




Maybe it's because you haven't read the entire thing, but I don't see that as a vibe which runs through it. Obviously I'm not doing a head-count, but I think there are just as many people not agreeing with Matthew_Freeman (or with me, or anyone else) as there are agreeing. We've had a lot of posts from people who either don't see the sexism I do or don't think it's an issue or don't think anything needs to be changed or ... well, a lot of other positions. 



> So... either we're anti-sexism activists, or we're unaware and ignorant _people_ who are contributing to the problem. What does _not_ seem to enter the realm of possibility for you is that I (and I consider myself a fairly representative gamer for my age group) am perfectly aware of what is and isn't sexist behavior and yet I still see no call for change in the gaming arena over all.




I would wager Mathew_Freeman isn't arguing that only these two positions exist, but he'd have to be the one to answer that. Even if he were, he's only one person expressing an opinion on the thread, just as you are. To fixate on that and say it's endemic to the entire thread is a little overly defensive, IMO.

Especially since you say: 



> I make no claims about the discussion on ENWorld in general, or about gamers other than those I know personally, because I've been posting very infrequently here the last few years, and besides, I'm neither responsible for their behavior, nor particularly interested in it either.




In that case, is the behavior of those of us posting in this thread really that important or offensive to you?



> Now, if you had posited some specific situations that we could discuss, well, then we could have a discussion.  But since you haven't; you've merely claimed that there is a widespread problem that I don't see, and wanted to jump straight into talking about solutions, I'm having trouble engaging in the conversation.




Okay. Off the top of my head, a few examples which have been raised in this thread, over the course of it are the difference between the core rules (which are thoroughly egalitarian) and other elements of the game such as miniatures, campaign settings and modules, most of which are invariably skewed heavily towards men. And most of these were examples raised by people besides me.



> Of course, I'd _love_ to have a conversation about sexism in our society overall (as opposed to limiting it to gaming) but due to the nature of this place, this is a _horrible_ venue for it.  I'd do it on Circvs Maximvs, though.




I'll have to pass. From what little I've seen of Circvs Maximvs, it doesn't make for polite and well-reasoned discussion, especially on inflammatory subjects. And admittedly some of that is sheer laziness  Actually keeping up with this thread is taking up enough time as it is.



1Mac said:


> shilsen, this was way upthread, but I wanted to clarify.
> 
> ...
> 
> This wildly misinterprets what I meant, though i concede that I could have been unclear. I meant the above as examples where the effort to create non-sexist characters at the expense of actual characterization goes terribly awry. The kinds of characters Keira Knightly tends to play are a caution to those who think removing sexism is an unalloyed good without any other consideration.




Aha! Thanks for the clarification. I wholly agree. 



> Anyway, this thread has gotten way more gnarled and bifurcated since yesterday, such that I could not possibly absorb it all. But since I'm here, something I thought worth highlighting while I skimmed. Earlier I said that there is nothing inherently sexist in classic myth and fantasy, that their association with sexism depend on cultural factors that are no longer relevant today. A few people are saying that association is enough reason to purge those elements from fantasy in general and fantasy gaming in the specific.
> 
> Someone upthread said that this attitude, and not the attitude of fantasy preservationists, is what is exclusionary and divisive, and I think that is right. Writing fantasy from a more modern sensibility as far as gender goes is great, but that doesn't make classic fantasy tropes invalid simply because they may carry some sexist baggage. It doesn't even make them sexist.




Again, I agree. As I've said earlier, I think the manner of usage is what makes something sexist or not. I have no problem with using classic fantasy tropes. It's when they (intentionally or not) make one gender seem more important or normative than another that I have a problem with it.



Gentlegamer said:


> What's wrong with being sexy?




As Mallus said, nothing. And I haven't seen anyone suggesting that the game shouldn't include elements which are sexy, so that's a little reductionist. 



S'mon said:


> On the bright side, that unpleasant experience caused me to develop some GMing techniques to help ensure that future female players IMCs wouldn't have their enjoyment affected by perceived sexism, and in two subsequent lengthy campaigns with several female players (including two Californians!) I've not had any complaints.




Good to hear. Care to post some of these GMing techniques? 

P.S. What's special about Californians? I think I'm missing a reference/joke.


----------



## mlund

The thing I run afoul of in seeking to create purely egalitarian societies in a fantasy setting is that I work under the general assumption that all the "civilized" races had their night in the barrel when it comes to barbarism / tribalism. In a points-of-light setting, I'd have to generally assume that the distance between any given civilization and a hasty return to barbarism / tribalism is approximately 1-2 generations.

Given that the "civilized" races reproduce sexually I infer that they have established gender roles and traditions that are survival adaptations. In a survival-oriented form of tribalism the survival of the female members of the tribe is far more important than the survival of the male members. A tribe that loses half its adult males in a war once every 20 years can get by alright. A tribe that loses half its adult females in such a calamity every 20 years won't survive.

How that plays out can range from matriarchy all the way to patriarchy, but sexism seems inevitable. Whether ruled by women or men the tribe is going to put a hefty emphasis on women conforming to the role of motherhood and keeping them out of the way of harm unrelated to pregnancy. Meanwhile men will be placed into the way of such harms in greater proportion, and will make up a disproportionate number of the landless, homeless, exiles, criminals, and mate-less.

That's going to logically carry over into a Points of Light society. Maybe women are a ruling caste and any violence against a woman by a man is punishable by death. Maybe women are objectified to the point of being property - extremely valuable property, but property none the less. Likely most "background" societies are somewhere in between, but an onus to conform to gender-roles and the sexism that comes with it is unlikely to disappear.

I recommend keeping a weather eye open to how this cuts both ways. Sexism is not exclusively women being forced to conformity by oppressive men. Even in a matriarchal society you may very well see fewer young women as warriors on parapets or among cloistered clergy and more of them focused on raising children. However you can also expect males without their own families and homes to be regarded with some antipathy. Armed foreign males are going to be assessed as threats in many villages and smaller towns too, regardless of patriarchy or matriarchy.

Adventurers are generally freaks who take outrageous risks and refuse to conform to socially valuable roles of mothers and fathers. Until they establish roots or reputation that give them social value / status they are going to catch flak for failing to conform to social norms, which are largely rooted in gender roles.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Bumbles

shilsen said:


> Okay. I think the rest of my posts on the thread make it clear I'm not trying to say that, of course, which you noted.




Well, I hope they do, but I know I can barely keep track of my own posts let alone everybody else's.  So while I'm willing to cut you some slack, I'm also going to suggest parts where you could possibly be saying things poorly, which is a bad thing when it's a potentially divisive subject like this.

Anyway, take a look at that review, wish I knew if the PDF was still available, but if not, maybe there's an opportunity for another one!


----------



## Ariosto

In the 4E PHB:

Six of 11 non-evil deities (55%) are female. Two of eight evil deities (25%) are female. All together, eight of 19 deities (42%) are female.

Among sample adventurer descriptions, females are 1/3 of dragonborn, dwarves, elves, half-elves, humans and tieflings; and 2/3 of eladrin and halflings. Overall, 10 of 24 (42%) are female.

My guess is that the illustration on p. 34 is meant to suggest that female dragonborn have breasts  ... and wear armor designed to show cleavage. 

The primary (big, section-leading) illustrations of the classes are male for cleric, fighter (dragonborn, see above), paladin, rogue, warlord, wizard; female for ranger and warlock. Females are two of eight (25%). Of course, this is based on features other than genitalia ... but in this context I would not expect the artists to make females look masculine.

My subjective impression of the rest of the art is that female figures are a minority.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

shilsen said:


> *A FOLLOW-UP – SOLUTIONS:*
> 
> ...
> 
> Thoughts and feedback?





Shilsen, did you (or Proserpine) read my earlier posts?

I don't see any response. Maybe I am missing it. 

But it seems like there was a major piece of the whole sexism debate that you weren't even aware of. Namely, the research on sex differences in cognitive abilities.

Do you have any thoughts or feedback on that? The research I linked to is on page 13. It has a lot of impact on how we should look at sexism in RPGs. 

As for your proposed solutions, I think there is a problem with #4. Both of them don't work equally well in a mass-marketed product. Precisely because of biological, hard-wired sexism.  For the same reason pink footballs and machine gun slug-throwing Barbies don't sell as well as pigskin footballs and Malibu Barbies, "rescue the prince" plotlines don't sell as well as "rescue the princess" stories.


----------



## Gentlegamer

shilsen said:


> As Mallus said, nothing. And I haven't seen anyone suggesting that the game shouldn't include elements which are sexy, so that's a little reductionist.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8IrZ4sKLQw]YouTube - Spinal Tap: it's a fine line between stupid ... and clever[/ame]


----------



## Proserpine

Ycore Rixle said:


> Shilsen, did you (or Proserpine) read my earlier posts?
> 
> I don't see any response. Maybe I am missing it.
> 
> But it seems like there was a major piece of the whole sexism debate that you weren't even aware of. Namely, the research on sex differences in cognitive abilities.
> 
> Do you have any thoughts or feedback on that? The research I linked to is on page 13.
> 
> As for your proposed solutions, I think there is a problem with #4. Both of them don't work equally well in a mass-marketed product. Precisely because of biological, hard-wired sexism.  For the same reason pink footballs and machine gun slug-throwing Barbies don't sell as well as pigskin footballs and Malibu Barbies, "rescue the prince" plotlines don't sell as well as "rescue the princess" stories.




1) Many people commented on "research" regarding sex differences and cognitive abilities. Plenty of them (including a biologist) pointed out that these studies have a tendency to be pretty flawed. But whether or not that research is tried and true fact is immaterial to me, as social factors play a far larger role when it comes to differences among the genders. That's why "masculinity" meant something different in ancient Athens than it means in the USA today than it means in contemporary India than it means in Columbia... you get the picture. 

2) How is sexism "biological, hard-wired"? Do you mean gender differences, not sexism? As I mentioned, I think biology plays a really small role, especially in comparison to social factors.

3) I did read those slides you linked (for both sides of the debate). Like someone else said, neither were very compelling to me. What's pretty clear to me (and somewhat touched upon in those slides, actually) is that the initial interest/participation in areas which supposedly cater to male cognitive abilities is much less gender skewed than at higher levels. As a current university student, that's something I've certainly noticed: many of my fellow female undergraduates are either in the hard sciences or economics (paired with political science or some marketing major, usually). Which ultimately means a lot of women do pursue things that were once (and are still) considered more "masculine," or biologically better suited for men. I mean, ever hear of a thing called sports?

4) Mattel makes motorcycle, doctor, and tattoo barbie, you know.  Motorcycle barbie is apparently is also quite expensive, meaning there's demand for it. Seriously. And guys (especially in my generation) are starting to wear pink and pastel colors, or make-up, or whatever else quite freely. As I've said before, these things are fluid - they are not fixed and biologically determined. 

5) When shilsen was running the game I play in (and I'm the only woman), he did create a "save the male in distress" scenario. And no one really noticed, including myself. Men and women alike seriously aren't losing out from abandoning dated, sexist scenarios.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Proserpine said:


> But whether or not that research is tried and true fact is immaterial to me, as social factors play a far larger role when it comes to differences among the genders.




Well, glad you read them. I don't understand how you can not care about whether or not the research is true or not. The research disproves exactly what you state there about social factors. Why don't you care if it is true or not?

I mean, this thread is about sexism in D&D. If sexism is caused by biology, then it shouldn't be attacked, decried, and argued away any more than eyesight and the need for oxygen.

But, alas, I think we have two different approaches here. The facts of the world as it is are important to me. If I read you correctly, they aren't to you. Perhaps, in a thread on a fantasy game, I am indeed the odd one out.

Edit: Assuming #2 is a legitimate rather than rhetorical question, the answer is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_psychology.


----------



## Ariosto

The wider cultural context from which people approach the game is something to consider.

In the 1970s, the D&Ders I met were mostly also into SF -- and SF was into exploring the human condition as well as escaping it. On Norton's Witch World or Bradley's Darkover, there were significant cultural differences from Earth. However, there were also similarities.

To look at sex relationships with blinders on regarding economics and social class can really skew things -- and the looking in our society that gets prestige is mostly from a pretty particular class. The academic observers for the most part are outsiders to a broad swathe of reality even in our society, and even further removed from the experiences that shape people in pre-industrial agrarian ones.

The need for a thesis that appeals to the academy, especially in the humanities, is notably different from the need a "pulp fiction" writer has for verisimilitude that appeals to the common reader.

The Witches of Estcarp are a matriarchy founded on an exclusive claim to the prerogative of magic. The role of females in the ruling Houses of Darkover, whose _laran_ powers and matrix technology give an economic basis for their political hegemony, is also significant. Darkovan patriarchy, though, gives rise to the Guild of Renunciates.

There are impostures in both of those power structures, and a simple "oppressed sex" paradigm is simplistic and superficial next to the writers' dealings with more fundamentally human issues. The stories of Renunciates concern betrayals of trust that on deeper analysis are not peculiarly masculine, and the "freedom" of apartheid is not utopia but exile. Male or female, and whatever our sexuality, we are not complete in isolation; blades cut their wielders.

Among the peasants who must make up most of the population of an ancient or medieval civilization, men and women depend on each other for survival. There is neither bread to eat, nor a thread to wear, unless their assigned labors are joined. Neither, of course, are there children to take care of them in their old age.

Many of us today are in similar circumstances, except that there are no such set and sustainable complimentary "spheres". This is especially awkward when our upbringing was in the conceptual framework of a "middle class" with different expectations. It can be hard on both a woman and a man to find that she is the "bread winner".

Enough rambling for now! Better to post the thing and get feedback than to go over it more on my own.


----------



## Lanefan

A couple of pebbles to lob into the pond here...

1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender?  And what results do you get?

Or do you as DM even allow such? (in a thread here a few months back, a surprising number of DMs flatly and shockingly stated that such was banned in their games...a serious eye-opener, to be sure)

The game I currently play in has 3 male players and 2 female (was 3, and the lapsed player's PC is still in the party); yet the in-party gender ration is *M-3/F-8*. (we usually run 2 PCs each, if you're wondering at the math there...)

2. A long time ago, we made some changes to our 1e-based game rules to make it less sexist - to a point:
:::Human stat adjustments due to gender went out the window.  
::warves were made to be male-centric (over 60% of all Dwarves are male; their females rarely if ever adventure), and Gnomes were made to be the reverse though not quite so militant about it.  Female Gnomes and Male Dwarves can become stronger etc. than their opposites.  Elves were *supposed* to become somewhat androgynous but that just never happened in play; I find I prefer the actual result over the theory anyway.
:::When I redid the pantheons to a "universal" system, male-female became the third great division, along with good-evil and law-chaos (and rated as more important than law-chaos); thus, by definition, gender equality at the divine level across all alignments becomes a pure and simple fact.
:::Cavaliers were charged with defense of the (supposedly-weaker) opposite gender - leading to loads of fun when there's a Cavalier of each gender in the party; as has happened once or twice. 

3. While the selection of plastic female minis doesn't impress, I've noticed more and more really good female metal minis coming out of late; so all is not lost on that front.

Lanefan


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Lanefan said:


> A couple of pebbles to lob into the pond here...
> 
> 1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender?  And what results do you get?




I'd say about 10-20% of the time. Results have been normal, that is, it really hasn't made a difference one way or the other on the campaign. We've also had a gay plotline back in a NYC campaign that was super. But that's the beauty of D&D again: the campaign can change to suit the group.


----------



## Ariosto

I can see selection pressures for gender (psychological) differences in synergy with sexual (physical) ones. It's difficult to separate socialization because human societies so far have been shaped by the same factors.

Basically, I have not found very much personal use for stereotypes. I'm not so much an extrovert as typically to deal with statistically representative samples. My really important relationships are with individuals, and I'm not surprised that they tend to be "square pegs" as much as me!

There are some sex-mapped trends that I have found helpful, especially in inter-sex dealings. Finding out a hard way that someone really is "like other guys / gals" makes an impression. There's a middle ground between ignoring such things and making too much of them.

In art (and for this purpose I include RPGs), contrast is an important element. There is no vision in its absence, but too few shades of gray can deprive a work of richness. What makes player-characters notable?


----------



## pawsplay

I'd rather deal with sexism than not deal with it. If I were the D"&D brand manager, I would write the core rulebook from the standpoint of complete egalitarianism. I would make sure that genders were roughly equally represented in examples and that the specific examples did not skew in a certain direction (such as all people dying being female or whatever). I'd also make sure that my first set of miniatures intended for D&D PCs include at least one human female, preferably two (one with sword, one unarmored with dagger). I'd look for an attractive but respectful mix of art, and avoid outright cheesecake that defies any plausible explanation as being part of the game, e.g. non-functional "female" armor. A little cleavage is not, in my mind, a bad thing, with the understanding that women should be represented in a variety of ways and men should be represented in a similar fashion. For instance, a "rogue" in a somewhat fetishy corset is not out of place next to a male rogue in a loose tunic and tight pants, but a female "paladin" in a corset should not be standing next to a male paladin in functional armor. 

In campaign settings, I would make gender roles an explicit part of how each and every culture and region is described. My own preference for classical fantasy worlds is a more medievally feel. Women adventurers are exceptional, but my assumption is that all adventurers are exceptional. In such a setting, farmers farm, knights collect taxes, men get conscripted, and women bear and raise children, but adventurers, being exceptional individuals, do not necessarily fit the everyday pattern. I think giving each culture its own way of dealing with gender highlights and illuminates the issues in an informative and entertaining fashion. In some cultures, women may be virtually property, in others they are deferential to men but equally valued, and in other cases, may be the dominant force in society. I think nonhuman races are an opportunity to go wild. Whatever dwarven men think of dwarven women, I am certain it little resembles anything in human history. 

In non-traditional settings, whether picaresques like Talislanta and Glorantha or romantic fantasy like Blue Rose or whatever, I think the selection should be made according to personal, artistic, and marketing reasons. A completely egalitarian D&D campaign setting makes a lot of sense. However, I think it would be completely unworkable. I think most players would reject a world where men shared child-rearing responsibilities evenly with women, men and women had unisex names and wore mainly unisex clothing, and the culture entirely lacked what most people would consider "natural" gender roles found in our culture, such as the sexually aggressive male and the enticing but demure female. Sure, you could write a game world that was egalitarian by 21st century Western standards, but it would be loaded with sexist content. For instance, if the author was American, they might assume an all-male or mostly-male infantry, but there are plenty of places in the world where women have fought in standing armies, including most Communist countries. Just covering breasts on women might seem as quaint to some humans, as hoop skirts are to the modern mind. 

Can a truly egalitarian game book gain mass market success in a world where Brittney Spears is a pop star?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Lanefan said:


> A couple of pebbles to lob into the pond here...
> 
> 1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender?  And what results do you get?
> 
> Or do you as DM even allow such? (in a thread here a few months back, a surprising number of DMs flatly and shockingly stated that such was banned in their games...a serious eye-opener, to be sure)




As a DM, I don't care if you play your gender or not.

As a player, I try to play the gender the PC concept suggests...or in some cases, demands.  If this means playing a female (I'm male), so be it.

For some reason, this makes some of my GM's (past and present) uncomfortable.  Some are so uncomfortable with the concept that they flat-out forbid opposite-gender PCs.  So if they won't let me do it, I change PCs and place "the offender" in a file to be used later.



> 3. While the selection of plastic female minis doesn't impress, I've noticed more and more really good female metal minis coming out of late; so all is not lost on that front



.

I made a similar observation a few pages ago- I'm glad to see that I'm not alone in at least perceiving that.


----------



## Ariosto

"Is wish-fulfillment game X viable" is to me something other than whether it should be D&D. I don't find D&D "better" for being made more like RuneQuest -- or vice-versa. I don't look forward eagerly to the day when the neighborhood hamburger stand falls to McDonald's.


----------



## S'mon

shilsen said:


> Good to hear. Care to post some of these GMing techniques?
> 
> P.S. What's special about Californians? I think I'm missing a reference/joke.




Just that Californians tend to be particularly sensitive, including sensitive to perceived *isms.

Techniques - trying to remember - well, in the campaign that was perceived to be sexist, it was set in a vaguely patriarchal Gygaxo-medievalesque area.  The premise was that the PCs were working for a nobleman - which I think was a problem if they wanted to do something different.   The big problem actually was that the female players' perception of the campaign seem to be filtered through one of the male players (not Matt), who had a very skewed take on it, and by the time I realised that it was too late.  So I've looked out for that.  Another issue was a female noble NPC the PCs had to rescue at least twice; I think she was arguably a sexist character, or at any rate my portrayal of her was not great.   The problem there was that she was the only female NPC in a position of power that the PCs had dealings with.

So, I think the main thing in subsequent campaigns has been to avoid rescue-the-princess scenarios, except when running published scenarios (eg Rahasia).  The next campaign I ran was Lost City of Barakus; it doesn't include any female NPCs in positions of power except for one villain, but it's a sandbox and the PCs are free to do whatever they want.  The only time the PCs encountered a damsel in distress, she had escaped from slavers herself, the PCs just escorted her back to town and she became a valuable contact as a magic item broker.

The next, current campaign I'm running (Willow Vale) is mission/scenario based; the PCs work for the king and he sends them on missions.  This is potentially like the 'problematic' campaign, and again pretty much all the NPCs in positions of power are male.  However where the first campaign was set in a civilised realm, this is a 'points of light' setting where everyone needs to work together to survive; sexism is irrelevant when every heroic PC is vital to the survival of the realm.  The general thing has been to avoid sexist portrayals of female NPCs.  Actually I told off a player who had his dwarf PC making sexist comments to a female PC of (the only) female player, my feeling is that it may be 'all in character' but it can easily create a bad atmosphere.

Another thing about the original campaign - I couldn't get through to the female players that while the setting was somewhat patriarchal, this didn't noticeably affect the ability of female PCs to achieve positions of power.  They had already formed an impression of powerlessness based off their perceptions filtered through the male player who tended to dominate activity at the table.  So I've kept an eye out for any sign such dynamics could be forming; luckily this has not been a problem since.

One useful technique in the Barakus campaign was to give each PC several useful NPC contacts, who they could detail themselves.  That way the female players and PCs had independent sources of information and power.  For instance, one female player's PC was an army veteran; one of her contacts was a wealthy retired general.  This relation was independent of any of the other PCs.

Hmm, thinking about it I think I'll start using that Contacts system again in my current Willow Vale game - I've been looking for ways to open it out.  Thanks Shilsen.


----------



## S'mon

Lanefan said:


> A couple of pebbles to lob into the pond here...
> 
> 1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender?  And what results do you get?




My wife is more comfortable playing male PCs; when she plays female characters they tend to be too danger-averse to actually adventure.  I quite like playing female PCs, but I tend to only play them with female GMs, who IME are more likely to be supportive.

My last two campaigns, everyone has played a character of the same sex.  Some female players who are sensitive about sexism don't want to have to play a male PC in order to have equal opportunities.  Also, my current game is an open-access one at a club with constantly changing players; in that environment players may prefer to play a PC of the same sex for ease of identification.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

S'mon said:


> Just that Californians tend to be particularly sensitive, including sensitive to perceived *isms.




*ahem*

I _think_ you mean to say that Californians are *stereotyped* as being particularly sensitive, including sensitive to perceived *isms.


----------



## S'mon

Dannyalcatraz said:


> *ahem*
> 
> I _think_ you mean to say that Californians are *stereotyped* as being particularly sensitive, including sensitive to perceived *isms.




Nope.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

S'mon said:


> It wasn't intended to be "an example of how women are as sexist as men".  It was an example of how sexism can be a problem sometimes (the regular game) but not others - the Conan game.   The reason K gave me was that in the regular game she felt constrained, in the Conan game she could do what she liked, ergo the sexism of the setting was not a problem.
> 
> Obviously I had absolutely no problem with K and L's PCs acquiring nubile young male companions in an inversion of the usual conquering-male-barbarian tropes.  I don't know if this was 'sexist' in some way, and I don't care.  They enjoyed it, I enjoyed it, it was fun.




Then let's leave that bit of ancient history to history, and not distract from the rest of the thread any further.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

S'mon said:


> Nope.




That's anti-Californiaist.

(Not that I mind all that much- I'm not from California.)


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

S'mon said:


> On the bright side, that unpleasant experience caused me to develop some GMing techniques to help ensure that future female players IMCs wouldn't have their enjoyment affected by perceived sexism, and in two subsequent lengthy campaigns with several female players (including two Californians!) I've not had any complaints.




Very glad to hear it. 

I'm sure, in all honesty, that if you subjected the campaign that I'm currently running to the same sort of scrutiny as I did yours, then you'd find that mine has problems (in terms of attitudes to race, sex or similar) so I'm not going to claim I'm some sort of perfect GM in this regard. All anyone can do as a GM is to listen to their players when they raise an issue and address it, and to make sure that players feel that it is possible to raise an issue if they want to.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Hobo said:


> I suppose what I don't like is the vibe, explicitly stated in Matthew_Freeman's post here, but really kinda running throughout the thread as a whole (as much of it as I've read anyway, which admittedly is far from the entire thing:
> So... either we're anti-sexism activists, or we're unaware and ignorant _people_ who are contributing to the problem.  What does _not_ seem to enter the realm of possibility for you is that I (and I consider myself a fairly representative gamer for my age group) am perfectly aware of what is and isn't sexist behavior and yet I still see no call for change in the gaming arena over all.  I don't believe products (in general) are sexist (in fact they're so deliberately non-sexist that it calls attention to itself, which is generally a sign of having gone too far as far as I'm concerned.)  I don't believe the people I game with are sexist.  I make no claims about the discussion on ENWorld in general, or about gamers other than those I know personally, because I've been posting very infrequently here the last few years, and besides, I'm neither responsible for their behavior, nor particularly interested in it either.




Thanks for spelling out your position in more detail.

Having spent time discussing these issues with my partner, I think that it's easy to misunderstand how your behaviour comes across to other people. I'm certainly not of the belief that you're a rampant sexist that thinks all women are beneath him and can be treated as objects or anything like that.

You state that you don't think the people you game with are sexist, and I am sure you're probably right. Would you mind giving me a bit more detail about the make-up of the group - is it all male, a mix, and what sort of ages?

In terms of whether or not Western society is sexist - we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. If you take a look at the sites linked to earlier in the thread, you can certainly see that there is a lot of analysis of current issues, focusing on a sexism angle. I find it hard to believe that you could spend some time reading those blogs and not admit that there is a problem with sexism in society, even if we differ in terms of how much of a problem it is.

Finally, to bring the issue back to gaming, I think it's clear (for me) that there are still problems within D&D as a gaming hobby in terms of sexism. I was thinking about the NPC's in _Keep on the Shadowfell_, and it's notable that the priest in Winterhaven is female, whereas the Lord is male. I also noted that the Lord's wife is not mentioned at all, presumably as the adventure writer didn't think she would be relevant to the game.

This isn't, per se, something I would say is blatantly sexist and a huge problem, but it is indicative of the wider attitudes that permeate gaming and D&D, and as such it is worth bringing up.


----------



## S'mon

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That's anti-Californiaist.
> 
> (Not that I mind all that much- I'm not from California.)




So you're saying that being sensitive to sexism, racism et al is a _bad thing_?


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Ycore Rixle said:


> Well, glad you read them. I don't understand how you can not care about whether or not the research is true or not. The research disproves exactly what you state there about social factors. Why don't you care if it is true or not?
> 
> I mean, this thread is about sexism in D&D. If sexism is caused by biology, then it shouldn't be attacked, decried, and argued away any more than eyesight and the need for oxygen.
> 
> But, alas, I think we have two different approaches here. The facts of the world as it is are important to me. If I read you correctly, they aren't to you. Perhaps, in a thread on a fantasy game, I am indeed the odd one out.
> 
> Edit: Assuming #2 is a legitimate rather than rhetorical question, the answer is here: Evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.




I think the thing you're missing is that whilst you maintain that sexism is a biological factor, other people disagree. There really is no completely concrete evidence that fully proves one thing or the other. Personally, I also disagree that evolutionary psychology is correct, and I would also maintain that societal factors are much more important than biology in terms of deciding how the various parts of humanity interact with each other.

Wikipedia, also, is not an academic source. Whilst that article is written by a conglomeration of people that all agree with it, it has not been peer reviewed in an academic fashion and as such shouldn't really be used as evidence that a particular viewpoint is correct.

We're probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one, sadly.


----------



## shilsen

mlund said:


> The thing I run afoul of in seeking to create purely egalitarian societies in a fantasy setting is that I work under the general assumption that all the "civilized" races had their night in the barrel when it comes to barbarism / tribalism. In a points-of-light setting, I'd have to generally assume that the distance between any given civilization and a hasty return to barbarism / tribalism is approximately 1-2 generations.




Fair enough. I'm not commenting on all of your post, but the thing I like about it is that you have a pretty well-reasoned argument for gender roles in the game as well as not seeming exclusionary towards one gender, and I like that. I might quibble about some things, such as the assumption about all the civilized races having gone through barbarism/tribalism and that having a similar effect. I personally find it much more interesting to have variation there as well as to emphasize the way the very divergent nature of the various fantasy races mediating the effects of their history in different way. But that's a small quibble.



> I recommend keeping a weather eye open to how this cuts both ways. Sexism is not exclusively women being forced to conformity by oppressive men.




Sure. And I think one of the ways in which one can deal intelligently and interestingly with sexism in the game world is to have divergent expressions of it, sometimes even within the same society. 



> Armed foreign males are going to be assessed as threats in many villages and smaller towns too, regardless of patriarchy or matriarchy.




And armed foreign females too, of course.



> Adventurers are generally freaks who take outrageous risks and refuse to conform to socially valuable roles of mothers and fathers. Until they establish roots or reputation that give them social value / status they are going to catch flak for failing to conform to social norms, which are largely rooted in gender roles.




I'd quibble here again that social norms don't necessarily have to be largely rooted in gender norms, esp. not in all parts of a fantasy world.



Bumbles said:


> Well, I hope they do, but I know I can barely keep track of my own posts let alone everybody else's.  So while I'm willing to cut you some slack, I'm also going to suggest parts where you could possibly be saying things poorly, which is a bad thing when it's a potentially divisive subject like this.




Sure. Suggestions are always welcome, though I might not always agree about how much slack you're cutting me 



> Anyway, take a look at that review, wish I knew if the PDF was still available, but if not, maybe there's an opportunity for another one!




I did get around to looking at it. Very interesting, and it might be fun to play in for a one-off campaign, but I don't think I'd care to play something like that for the long-term. I certainly wouldn't recommend it be the default for D&D core rules and campaign settings. It might work well as one area in a campaign setting, however. 



Ariosto said:


> In the 4E PHB:




I think we've got general consensus here that the PHB is very egalitarian in its presentation of the sexes. The artwork, however, is a little silly sometimes. If you look at the class pictures, apparently the female dragonborn, dwarf, elf, half-elf and human decided that showing cleavage in a fight and having no armoring over the upper part of the chest is a really good idea, whereas their male counterparts were clever enough to cover up 



Ycore Rixle said:


> Shilsen, did you (or Proserpine) read my earlier posts?
> 
> I don't see any response. Maybe I am missing it.




We did. Canis seemed to have responded to them adequately, so I hadn't commented.



> But it seems like there was a major piece of the whole sexism debate that you weren't even aware of. Namely, the research on sex differences in cognitive abilities.




Actually, it's a major part of the sexism debate which I'm very aware of, and a part which I think is either wrong or misapplied and usually both. In the context of this thread, I personally think it's also irrelevant. 

In short, since I am commenting on the existence of sexism in a fantasy world, which is inhabited by creatures that are patently _not_ the same as real world humanity (and humans in the D&D world, if simply by reason of the fact that sexual dimorphism is much smaller - if not non-existent - there, are not really like real-world humans either) and have certainly not experienced the same history and cultural development as humans in the real world, any difference in real world cognitive abilities wouldn't matter. Especially since such supposed differences don't really affect whether an individual male or female can play and enjoy D&D.



> Do you have any thoughts or feedback on that? The research I linked to is on page 13. It has a lot of impact on how we should look at sexism in RPGs.




As Canis commented, that's just an example of really bad science. Which is only one reason why I think it has no impact on how we should look at sexism in RPGs. 



> As for your proposed solutions, I think there is a problem with #4. Both of them don't work equally well in a mass-marketed product.




Mass-marketed products, and the market itself, change and develop all the time. If they didn't, then D&D today would be exactly the same as D&D in 1974 (or 2001), and it isn't.



> Precisely because of biological, hard-wired sexism.




Assuming that one actually believes biological, hard-wired sexism exists and, more importantly, has more of an effect than social and cultural influences. Even if (and that's a big if) biological hard-wired sexism existed, what sort of influence it has is so heavily mediated and overwhelmed by social and cultural (and, most importantly, individual) influences that I think they're irrelevant here.  



> For the same reason pink footballs and machine gun slug-throwing Barbies don't sell as well as pigskin footballs and Malibu Barbies, "rescue the prince" plotlines don't sell as well as "rescue the princess" stories.




That's almost exclusively cultural. As for gaming, I've used the example of Eberron before, which is a setting that is essentially egalitarian towards the sexes in its presentation. It lends itself equally well towards "rescue the prince" as "rescue the princess" plotlines. And it's selling just fine.



Ycore Rixle said:


> Well, glad you read them. I don't understand how you can not care about whether or not the research is true or not. The research disproves exactly what you state there about social factors. Why don't you care if it is true or not?




Speaking for myself, I don't think it's true, because the science seems really poorly one. Canis, who's much more well-educated on the subject than me, asserts that it is and I believe him. And even if it were true that wouldn't necessarily mean that it's important.  



> I mean, this thread is about sexism in D&D. If sexism is caused by biology, then it shouldn't be attacked, decried, and argued away any more than eyesight and the need for oxygen.




That's my point. Sexism isn't caused by biology. Even if there are intrinsic differences between the sexes, whether the one your link points to or not, the influence of these supposed distinctions is utterly negligible in comparison to the effects of society and culture. The entire meaning of 'male' and 'female' is different depending on where you are in the world right now, and has changed drastically over the course of human civilization. There is not a single quality considered masculine or feminine in one place right now which has not, at some point, been considered the opposite elsewhere. The very number of the genders has varied from culture to culture, with many cultures having multiple genders and recognizing all of them equally. So, no - I don't see how sexism is caused by biology. And, I reiterate, I especially don't see how real world sexism is that relevant to whether it should exist in a fantasy game which is not about the real world.



> But, alas, I think we have two different approaches here. The facts of the world as it is are important to me. If I read you correctly, they aren't to you./quote]
> 
> That's a big assumption. What you're describing as the facts of the world are things which I don't think are the facts of the world, and are rather both a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation of them. And that is why we are differing here, not because you are focusing on the facts of the world and I am (or Proserpine is) not.
> 
> 
> 
> Ariosto said:
> 
> 
> 
> The wider cultural context from which people approach the game is something to consider.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In short, agreed. But I should also note that the precise relevance of these cultural contexts to how sexism is portrayed in a fantasy world is something we might disagree about.
> 
> 
> 
> Mathew_Freeman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the thing you're missing is that whilst you maintain that sexism is a biological factor, other people disagree. There really is no completely concrete evidence that fully proves one thing or the other. Personally, I also disagree that evolutionary psychology is correct, and I would also maintain that societal factors are much more important than biology in terms of deciding how the various parts of humanity interact with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What he said.
> 
> And, as I keep repeating ad nauseam in this post, I seriously don't see why the societal factors and biology of our world should even be that relevant to how we portray the sexes and sexism in a fantasy world, much (if not all) of which clearly does not share either our societal factors and biology.
Click to expand...


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

shilsen said:


> That's my point. Sexism isn't caused by biology. Even if there are intrinsic differences between the sexes, whether the one your link points to or not, the influence of these supposed distinctions is utterly negligible in comparison to the effects of society and culture. The entire meaning of 'male' and 'female' is different depending on where you are in the world right now, and has changed drastically over the course of human civilization. There is not a single quality considered masculine or feminine in one place right now which has not, at some point, been considered the opposite elsewhere. The very number of the genders has varied from culture to culture, with many cultures having multiple genders and recognizing all of them equally. So, no - I don't see how sexism is caused by biology. And, I reiterate, I especially don't see how real world sexism is that relevant to whether it should exist in a fantasy game which is not about the real world.




Ah - this is one of the things that's been bubbling away in my head to say, but that I couldn't find the words for. Thank you.


----------



## shilsen

Lanefan said:


> A couple of pebbles to lob into the pond here...
> 
> 1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender?  And what results do you get?




In my tabletop games, it's been pretty rare, but when it's done, it's worked well. In the online games I'm in (a lot), there's a lot of genderbending and it's generally done well there too. Better, I think, since the player isn't visually there to serve as a contrast to the PC anyway. BTW, I'm commenting on games I'm in rather than just ones I've run, since I'm DMing much less recently.



> Or do you as DM even allow such? (in a thread here a few months back, a surprising number of DMs flatly and shockingly stated that such was banned in their games...a serious eye-opener, to be sure)




I certainly allow it as a DM. And I think I saw the thread and wasn't at all surprised by the responses there. Mainly because I'm (as this thread indicates) aware of some of the problematical issues with gender/sexism in the world in general and so I'm not surprised (though hardly delighted) to see the same in gaming and among individual gamers/groups. 



> The game I currently play in has 3 male players and 2 female (was 3, and the lapsed player's PC is still in the party); yet the in-party gender ration is *M-3/F-8*. (we usually run 2 PCs each, if you're wondering at the math there...)




Interesting. 



> 2. A long time ago, we made some changes to our 1e-based game rules to make it less sexist - to a point:
> 
> ...




Sounds like fun. I especially like the bit with the cavaliers of different genders 



> 3. While the selection of plastic female minis doesn't impress, I've noticed more and more really good female metal minis coming out of late; so all is not lost on that front.




True. As I think I've been saying pretty regularly, the situation is improving. I just figured it was worth having a discussion on what could use some work.



Ycore Rixle said:


> I'd say about 10-20% of the time. Results have been normal, that is, it really hasn't made a difference one way or the other on the campaign. We've also had a gay plotline back in a NYC campaign that was super. But that's the beauty of D&D again: the campaign can change to suit the group.




Agreed. 



Ariosto said:


> I can see selection pressures for gender (psychological) differences in synergy with sexual (physical) ones. It's difficult to separate socialization because human societies so far have been shaped by the same factors.




Only if we paint in broad strokes, I'd say. Even if some factors appear broadly similar I think there are often key differences. And the fact that different societies have such wildly different ideas of gender (and change their ideas as time goes on) is particularly instructive too.



> In art (and for this purpose I include RPGs), contrast is an important element. There is no vision in its absence, but too few shades of gray can deprive a work of richness. What makes player-characters notable?




They kill creatures and take their stuff better than other people ?

More seriously, I think the main thing which makes them notable is that the campaign revolves around them. All else is secondary, though other things may develop from (or aid in) the campaign revolving around them.



pawsplay said:


> I'd rather deal with sexism than not deal with it. If I were the D"&D brand manager...




Very nice suggestions. 



> In campaign settings, I would make gender roles an explicit part of how each and every culture and region is described. My own preference for classical fantasy worlds is a more medievally feel. Women adventurers are exceptional, but my assumption is that all adventurers are exceptional. In such a setting, farmers farm, knights collect taxes, men get conscripted, and women bear and raise children, but adventurers, being exceptional individuals, do not necessarily fit the everyday pattern. I think giving each culture its own way of dealing with gender highlights and illuminates the issues in an informative and entertaining fashion. In some cultures, women may be virtually property, in others they are deferential to men but equally valued, and in other cases, may be the dominant force in society. I think nonhuman races are an opportunity to go wild. Whatever dwarven men think of dwarven women, I am certain it little resembles anything in human history.




I have certain significant issues with medieval settings in D&D, for reasons I've already covered in this thread so I won't go into them again. But other than that personal quibble, I like these ideas too. Especially the one about nonhuman races. I've always thought that's an avenue for a lot of creativity and fun, not just where it comes to gender but in all areas.



> A completely egalitarian D&D campaign setting makes a lot of sense. However, I think it would be completely unworkable.
> 
> ...
> 
> Can a truly egalitarian game book gain mass market success in a world where Brittney Spears is a pop star?




Interesting points, but I'm not sure I'm defining egalitarian exactly the same way you are. I think you can have egalitarianism while having certain somewhat more common gender roles. 

And my answer to your last question is "Yes." Did I mention that I'm just as much an optimist as a cynic?



Dannyalcatraz said:


> As a DM, I don't care if you play your gender or not.




Same here, as I said. On a semi-related note, I've seen lots of men play flat, stereotypical, boring male PCs, and women play flat, stereotypical, boring female PCs. Men can play men badly and women can play women badly too.



> As a player, I try to play the gender the PC concept suggests...or in some cases, demands.  If this means playing a female (I'm male), so be it.
> 
> For some reason, this makes some of my GM's (past and present) uncomfortable.  Some are so uncomfortable with the concept that they flat-out forbid opposite-gender PCs.  So if they won't let me do it, I change PCs and place "the offender" in a file to be used later.




That's a reasonable way to do it. Me, I would tease the DM unmercilessly about it, but that's just me 



Ariosto said:


> "Is wish-fulfillment game X viable" is to me something other than whether it should be D&D. I don't find D&D "better" for being made more like RuneQuest -- or vice-versa. I don't look forward eagerly to the day when the neighborhood hamburger stand falls to McDonald's.




That's a reasonable position, but I think D&D can be fairly versatile and still remain D&D. For example, I think it's safe to say 4e is very different from 1e, 2e and 3e, but they are all still D&D to me. And since D&D is by far the industry leader among RPGs, I'd be happy to see D&D become more versatile and able to incorporate wider playstyles and accept a broader player base.



S'mon said:


> Just that Californians tend to be particularly sensitive, including sensitive to perceived *isms.




Tempting, but I'll let that go 



> Techniques - trying to remember...




Thanks for the detailed coverage. That's interesting and I'm sure more than a few people will be able to steal some stuff from there.



> Hmm, thinking about it I think I'll start using that Contacts system again in my current Willow Vale game - I've been looking for ways to open it out.  Thanks Shilsen.




I'm not sure I can take credit here, but sure 



			
				Mathew_Freeman said:
			
		

> In terms of whether or not Western society is sexist - we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. If you take a look at the sites linked to earlier in the thread, you can certainly see that there is a lot of analysis of current issues, focusing on a sexism angle. I find it hard to believe that you could spend some time reading those blogs and not admit that there is a problem with sexism in society, even if we differ in terms of how much of a problem it is.




I need to stop saying this re. your posts, but (surprise, surprise) I agree.



> This isn't, per se, something I would say is blatantly sexist and a huge problem, but it is indicative of the wider attitudes that permeate gaming and D&D, and as such it is worth bringing up.




And that is my attitude in a nutshell.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

Ycore Rixle said:


> I mean, this thread is about sexism in D&D. If sexism is caused by biology, then it shouldn't be attacked, decried, and argued away any more than eyesight and the need for oxygen.



Sexism may be caused by biology but that does not mean that is cannot be argued against or decryed. Some people feel, for instance, that women are better a caring for children than men. That is not necessary sexist per se. However, advocating forcing all women to stay at home to mind the chindren is sexist. I am not saying that you adovcate such a position. It is just an extreme example but from the not too distant past.


Ycore Rixle said:


> But, alas, I think we have two different approaches here. The facts of the world as it is are important to me. If I read you correctly, they aren't to you. Perhaps, in a thread on a fantasy game, I am indeed the odd one out.
> 
> Edit: Assuming #2 is a legitimate rather than rhetorical question, the answer is here: Evolutionary psychology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.



As far as I can tell, there is no scientific concensus regarding to the nature/nurture debate. I reckon the truth is a bit of both but how much is currently up in the air.

With regard to the OP, sexism in D&D, with respect to the rules I would say very little. In regards to the settings, I would agree with the OP that very few of the settings stand up to scrutily with regard to numbers of sentient species and top level predators. I cannot imagine that Elves/Eladrin could have reproduction biology resembling humans or the world would be buried under the weight of starving elves.
Other than that, it will be as sexist as the society that create it. There is so much of our daily assumption that we do not question and that will be reflected in the campaigns we create, unless someone calls us on it. 
This also applies to the gamer culture in general also.


----------



## S'mon

shilsen said:


> And, as I keep repeating ad nauseam in this post, I seriously don't see why the societal factors and biology of our world should even be that relevant to how we portray the sexes and sexism in a fantasy world, much (if not all) of which clearly does not share either our societal factors and biology.




In most settings (published & homebrew), it's taken that (most) 'humans' are essentially identical to real world humans, sexual dimorphism and all.  There are exceptions, like the Wilderlands' Amazons, but the base line human is a human much like those of the real world.  Basing arguments on rules for generating PCs is a complete red herring IMO.  There are good metagame reasons for not imposing Strength penalties on female PCs.  They have nothing to do with non-heroic female NPCs, who are normally assumed to have similar strength to real-world human females; likewise human males.

Apart from Order of the Stick, I have never seen a setting where the world is created based on the PC-centric rules in the PHB.

As for nature vs nurture, obviously the two sides of this politically charged argument are unlikely to agree on either premises or conclusions.


----------



## Desdichado

shilsen said:


> I'm not presuming that everyone is going to be interested in or able to engage in a discussion with me on the subject. More than a few people have popped in to say essentially "you're wrong" and left, and that's fine too.



Which is, really, what I'm doing too.  I'm just following up a little bit since you were kind enough to reply rather than read, and pass over my comments.


			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> In that case, is the behavior of those of us posting in this thread really that important or offensive to you?



I'm not offended, I'm just saying.


			
				shilsen said:
			
		

> I'll have to pass. From what little I've seen of Circvs Maximvs, it doesn't make for polite and well-reasoned discussion, especially on inflammatory subjects. And admittedly some of that is sheer laziness



Well, it's neither here nor there, but I'd suggest you have another look.  I find the opposite to be true.  Without moderation to hide behind, people are more responsible for what they say.  There are some real douchey comments from real douchey people from time to time, but since everyone is free to call them on their douchiness, that's the minority.  The climate at Circvs Maximvs actually is more conducive to polite and well-reasoned discussion than here in many ways.  At least in my opinion.

Although you do have to be prepared for the occasional unexpected wild ride from time to time.


----------



## billd91

shilsen said:


> And, as I keep repeating ad nauseam in this post, I seriously don't see why the societal factors and biology of our world should even be that relevant to how we portray the sexes and sexism in a fantasy world, much (if not all) of which clearly does not share either our societal factors and biology.




Because it's easier that way. Like I brought up in another thread about why people expect some form of realism (in that case physical realism) in their games, it's easiest to handle game settings as an exercise _in exception_, by describing where it's different from what we know and understand, than by construction.

We all have experience with a variety of modern social relationships, we all have some familiarity with past ones via our knowledge of history, portrayals in historical media, portrayals adapted into modern media, and the modern products of those past relationships. Structuring a campaign setting with all sorts of alternative social relationships takes a lot of hard work, particularly when these alternatives are probably going to be filtered through the brain as comparisons with the ones we already know anyway.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

ardoughter said:


> Sexism may be caused by biology but that does not mean that is cannot be argued against or decryed.




You're right. That was a poor argument of mine, and it doesn't follow at all. Sorry about that. There are plenty of things caused by biology that can and should be argued against and decried. Like cancer and lifespans that are way, way too short. Forgive me, it was late. 

What I meant was that if sexism is not counter to a good life as a human, then it should not be argued against or decried. If it's biological in origin, and not harmful to life, then it should not only be accepted but exploited.

For instance, schools can do very well to consider sex trends in their organization, curricula, and pedagogy. Arguing that differences between boys and girls, on average, can be socialized out of existence is very harmful to our boys and girls. That goes for D&D and RPGs, too: arguing that differences between men and women are only social (despite strong evidence to the contrary) can only hurt the game and limit its audience.


----------



## Hussar

If you are going to deal with issues of sexism in game, I would first be really, really up front with your players on it.  I'm a huge believer in groups sitting down, before character generation, before play, and discussing and hashing out elements that they all would like to see in the game.  The buy in for the campaign tends to work better when everyone is singing from the same page (or at least humming along).

Sexism, like any other real world issue, can get people pissed off.  And that's not something you probably want at your gaming table.  You have to know your players for this to work.  If you are going to, for example, explore the idea that women are X (whether that be exploited, or on top matriarchy, or whatever), then make sure your players are groovy with this in the game.  If they're not on board, your game's going to die a painful death, so, you might as well know up front.

Now, personally, I think the issue should be dealt with at a more community level.  Individual games can certainly do what they can, but, I think it does help the hobby in general if we are more supportive of any trend that expands the hobby.  To be 100% honest here, this has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with wanting the hobby to be so culturally accepted and ingrained that it's perfectly mainstream.  That being able to find a tabletop group anywhere, anytime, is no more difficult than finding a local team to join.  If that means making some efforts to open things up to women, hey, I'm all for it.

I'm not entirely sure how to do that, although, perhaps smacking the guy oggling the breasts of the girl who happened to come into the FLGS is a damn good start.


----------



## Gentlegamer

Someone find the quote in the original D&D set referring to "women's lib" . . .


----------



## Mallus

Gentlegamer said:


> Someone find the quote in the original D&D set referring to "women's lib" . . .



Is there one? This promises to be hilarious.


----------



## shilsen

ardoughter said:


> In regards to the settings, I would agree with the OP that very few of the settings stand up to scrutily with regard to numbers of sentient species and top level predators. I cannot imagine that Elves/Eladrin could have reproduction biology resembling humans or the world would be buried under the weight of starving elves.




Nice image!



> Other than that, it will be as sexist as the society that create it. There is so much of our daily assumption that we do not question and that will be reflected in the campaigns we create, unless someone calls us on it.
> This also applies to the gamer culture in general also.




True. Which is why I'm calling 



S'mon said:


> In most settings (published & homebrew), it's taken that (most) 'humans' are essentially identical to real world humans, sexual dimorphism and all.




I agree that it seems to be so. Obviously, I have some issues with that. And I think it's especially amusing (though I understand why it exists) when that gets applied to non-human fantasy species to, which it often/usually does.



> There are exceptions, like the Wilderlands' Amazons, but the base line human is a human much like those of the real world.  Basing arguments on rules for generating PCs is a complete red herring IMO.  There are good metagame reasons for not imposing Strength penalties on female PCs.  They have nothing to do with non-heroic female NPCs, who are normally assumed to have similar strength to real-world human females; likewise human males.




Fair enough. We'll have to differ about the red herring angle, since I think the fact that female PCs (and many NPCs, for that matter) can have exactly the same stats (physical and mental) as any male PCs is relevant.



Hobo said:


> Well, it's neither here nor there, but I'd suggest you have another look.  I find the opposite to be true.  Without moderation to hide behind, people are more responsible for what they say.  There are some real douchey comments from real douchey people from time to time, but since everyone is free to call them on their douchiness, that's the minority.  The climate at Circvs Maximvs actually is more conducive to polite and well-reasoned discussion than here in many ways.  At least in my opinion.




Okay. Maybe I'll take a look at it another time, but I'm not putting money on it, more due to time issues than anything else.



> Although you do have to be prepared for the occasional unexpected wild ride from time to time.




So I noticed 



billd91 said:


> Because it's easier that way. Like I brought up in another thread about why people expect some form of realism (in that case physical realism) in their games, it's easiest to handle game settings as an exercise _in exception_, by describing where it's different from what we know and understand, than by construction.
> 
> We all have experience with a variety of modern social relationships, we all have some familiarity with past ones via our knowledge of history, portrayals in historical media, portrayals adapted into modern media, and the modern products of those past relationships. Structuring a campaign setting with all sorts of alternative social relationships takes a lot of hard work, particularly when these alternatives are probably going to be filtered through the brain as comparisons with the ones we already know anyway.




That's a reasonable and very plausible explanation. And I understand the reasons which you listed, even though I may sometimes decry the end results.



Ycore Rixle said:


> What I meant was that if sexism is not counter to a good life as a human, then it should not be argued against or decried. If it's biological in origin, and not harmful to life, then it should not only be accepted but exploited.




I personally think - and find, in my experience - that sexism tends to be pretty harmful to a good life. And by sexism I specifically mean when one treats someone not as an individual but rather as a member of a particular group and assumes certain things about them on that basis. 



> For instance, schools can do very well to consider sex trends in their organization, curricula, and pedagogy. Arguing that differences between boys and girls, on average, can be socialized out of existence is very harmful to our boys and girls. That goes for D&D and RPGs, too: arguing that differences between men and women are only social (despite strong evidence to the contrary) can only hurt the game and limit its audience.




I obviously differ with you about the strong evidence, since I think the social and cultural differences heavily supersede and mediate any biological ones. Also, since we - as human beings - are constantly overriding and mediating our biology in order to go about our day-to-day lives, I also have some issues with heavy emphasis on gender as the determinant of individual identity. And, to tie it back to the issue of gaming again, especially so when it comes to an individual playing a game which is essentially about the imagination.



Hussar said:


> If you are going to deal with issues of sexism in game, I would first be really, really up front with your players on it.  I'm a huge believer in groups sitting down, before character generation, before play, and discussing and hashing out elements that they all would like to see in the game.  The buy in for the campaign tends to work better when everyone is singing from the same page (or at least humming along).
> 
> Sexism, like any other real world issue, can get people pissed off.  And that's not something you probably want at your gaming table.  You have to know your players for this to work.  If you are going to, for example, explore the idea that women are X (whether that be exploited, or on top matriarchy, or whatever), then make sure your players are groovy with this in the game.  If they're not on board, your game's going to die a painful death, so, you might as well know up front.




Good point. And, as you said, this is just a good idea in general. Making sure everyone is on the same page helps a lot.



> Now, personally, I think the issue should be dealt with at a more community level.  Individual games can certainly do what they can, but, I think it does help the hobby in general if we are more supportive of any trend that expands the hobby.  To be 100% honest here, this has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with wanting the hobby to be so culturally accepted and ingrained that it's perfectly mainstream.  That being able to find a tabletop group anywhere, anytime, is no more difficult than finding a local team to join.  If that means making some efforts to open things up to women, hey, I'm all for it.




I appreciate the honesty. My primary aim, personally, is much more about just being equally accepting and inclusive to different people and less about improving the cultural acceptance of the hobby. But I do think that making D&D less of a boy's club would be a good move to that end.



> I'm not entirely sure how to do that, although, perhaps smacking the guy oggling the breasts of the girl who happened to come into the FLGS is a damn good start.




Good move. A lot of the time I think the issue with sexism in the community is not so much about people being sexist themselves, but simply not saying anything when other people are. Which, while arguably not being as poor a form of behavior, certainly does allow the behavior to continue and perhaps flourish.



Gentlegamer said:


> Someone find the quote in the original D&D set referring to "women's lib" . . .






Mallus said:


> Is there one? This promises to be hilarious.




Like Mallus, I'm very interested to hear it.


----------



## DrunkonDuty

Wow, what a long thread. But I've gotten to the end. So let me just say:

Great thread.

In general terms I'd have to agree with the OP and the others (Proserpine, Matthew Freedman* and Canis to name the ones I can remember.) I won't add my .02 cents worth, the above mentioned posters (and others!) have said everything I would want to say and in much more erudite ways than I could. And I have learnt two new words: cisgender and solipsism. Cool stuff. Oh and Shilsen, thanks for offering a few solutions to the issues at hand.

I can respond to Lanefan's question about female roles in a campaign.

My main campaign that I have been running for some years now has been a conscious attempt on my part to make gender neutral campaign setting. My NPC list has 208 names on it. Of these 90 are female.

Now the main part of the list lists dwarves. It's a dwarf campaign. And I have specifically said that there is no sexual inequality among the dwarves (not so other races.) I have 162 dwarves named. 73 are female. I've broken it down further by rough groupings. The Royal Household has 17 named people, 8 female. The King is male. The Queen is just the Royal consort and has no political power. The Ordinary Folk section has 52 names, only 22 female. I can say I did a little better in the Military and Clergy where just over half of the NPCs listed are female (22 out of 39) and they are mostly senior, highly repsected people whom the PCs get to deal with. Historically speaking, the list of previous monarchs has 11 names, of whom only 4 are female. After I realised this I expressed my _mea culpa_ by making the female monarchs more interesting. 

All up I'd say I've done a pretty good job. But even when consciously trying to make myself be gender neutral in campaign design there's still some classic gender roles come in. The King for example. Without even thinking about it I made the monarch male. So to the Heir Apparent. (At least I made it a Constitutional monarchy!) Since then I've tried to to do it randomly. 

The non-dwarves are where the real disparity seems to leak in: 56 names, of whom only 17 are female. But then in this case the human and giant societies are meant to be something of a contrast to the dwarves.

Of the PCs we've had, over the course of play, 3 female players, 4 male. Currently down to 4 male, 1 female (of whom only 2 males are original players.) 2 of the women play(ed) male characters. 1 male player plays a female character. Everyone else plays their own gender. In terms of problems with transgender characters: none. Neither me nor the players are in anyway bothered by this.


*BTW Matthew, I understood your first post as you intended it. Your written communication skills are not that bad. 

cheers.


----------



## dbm

Wow, this is a loooong thread.  It's very hard to keep up.



Mathew_Freeman said:


> This is, to a certain extent, what I was trying to get at when I stated that men cannot understand what it feels like to a woman to live in a sexist world, because they don't experience it.




I want to share an experience that I had.  

I am in to LARP as well as table-top, and I used to go to the Gathering here in the UK.  For those of you who haven't come across this, it is a large-scale fest system which is based (at a high level) on the political manoeuvrings of a set of factions.  One of the factions is called the Tarantulas and is based on the classic Drow.  As well as having a couple of events which are aimed at everyone attending, the game also featured smaller events.  One set of these were the 'parliaments'.  Each faction had one and they were primarily designed so that only members of that faction would attend.

Back when I played (about 10 years ago now) I was a human, and my character was an ambassador, so I decided to go to all the parliaments.  When I attended the Drow parliament, I turned up and looked round the room.  Everyone else there was a Drow - jet black skin, platinum white hair.  And they all had weapons, and a reputation for killing people on a whim.

At that moment, I felt genuinely scared that I (my character) might be killed.  I made me appreciate what it must be like to be a racial minority in an environment that was hostile to them.

I am very meritocratic, so prejudice is never something I have gone in to.  After that experience my views on equality were further re-enforced.

I'm not advocating the use of RPGs as instructional aides, but emersive gaming is a powerful tool in exploring society's problems and learning how you personally can overcome them in your dealings with people.

Cheers,
Dan


----------



## Oni

shilsen said:


> That's my point. Sexism isn't caused by biology. Even if there are intrinsic differences between the sexes, whether the one your link points to or not, the influence of these supposed distinctions is utterly negligible in comparison to the effects of society and culture. The entire meaning of 'male' and 'female' is different depending on where you are in the world right now, and has changed drastically over the course of human civilization. There is not a single quality considered masculine or feminine in one place right now which has not, at some point, been considered the opposite elsewhere. The very number of the genders has varied from culture to culture, with many cultures having multiple genders and recognizing all of them equally. So, no - I don't see how sexism is caused by biology. And, I reiterate, I especially don't see how real world sexism is that relevant to whether it should exist in a fantasy game which is not about the real world.




To say that sexism as we know it is a direct product of the biological differences between the sexes is most likely folly.  On the other hand, to say that there are no differences between the sexes is folly is well.  One has only to look to see that the sexes are not the same.  That is an admittedly simple statement but one worth recognizing.  I touched on this earlier when I said the seeds of sexism lie in those fundamental differences.  What those differences are really are is not as important as that they exist in the first place.  It is the nature of people to separate, classify, and stratify pretty much everything based on what makes them different, or inversely group together by what makes them the same.  

The -ism's are largely fueled by some combination of three things, fear, power, and ignorance.  Sexism, in my mind, tends to draw mostly on the latter two.  The -ism's use differences as a tool, if two things have differences how can you say one is better than another.

The exact definition of what defines a man and a woman may differ from society to society and era to era, yet the divide itself is consistent.  That is to say that sexism exist the world over.  To me this indicates that it matters less what those differences may be and more that they are simply present.  How else does one explain this tendency to separate and elevate taking place in so many diverse cultures?  

There are of course exceptions, not every culture that has graced this earth has been some male dominated patriarchy.  To me this lends truth to the idea that sexism itself is not biologically ingrained into the human mind, that the particulars are a learned behavior.  However I believe that the need for classification and creation of social hierarchies is an ingrained part of human nature, as you simply will not find any society without some form of stratification.  Hence the seeds of sexism being born of the biological differences between the sexes, simply because where there are differences -ism's are likely to follow in some form or another.  Sexism isn't something people are born with, but something they will create again and again in some fashion or another because of humanities inborn incessant need to categorize things and put them in their place.  

If the humans of some fantasy world are just that, human, then the basics of human nature need apply if we are to relate to them as such.  If you start exorcising the faults and foible of humanity just because they are repugnant or offensive, then what do you have left when your done?  Real world sexism is relevant as it lies in the nature of humanity create such constructs.  I think you would write us better than we are, I would rather write us simply as we are.  I think those are both legitimate approaches.


----------



## Bumbles

shilsen said:


> I did get around to looking at it. Very interesting, and it might be fun to play in for a one-off campaign, but I don't think I'd care to play something like that for the long-term. I certainly wouldn't recommend it be the default for D&D core rules and campaign settings. It might work well as one area in a campaign setting, however.




Well, I wouldn't recommend any purposed setting as the default, whether it be Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Planescape or this one.   Such focus is less than desirable as a basis for the game.  But then, I don't like having the deities in it that are there now.

Probably also why I don't particularly favor Vampire or Exalted.

Oh, and before I forget, I should note that one thing I've noticed in this thread is people using the same or similar words, but not meaning quite the same things. 

Some of the disagreement may arise from that miscommunication.  So just a head's up on that issue.


----------



## Spatula

Oni said:


> If the humans of some fantasy world are just that, human, then the basics of human nature need apply if we are to relate to them as such.  If you start exorcising the faults and foible of humanity just because they are repugnant or offensive, then what do you have left when your done?



An escapist pursuit that can be enjoyed by everyone.

I'm all for simulationism - up to the point where it impacts the fun.  Some folks enjoy the opportunity to succeed despite being beaten down by the world around them, but when only one person in the group is getting the beatdown... And in the case of male sexism vs females (or other forms of common discrimination), there's the added dimension of the female player already having to put up with the unpleasant situations in real life.  Not many people would want to deal with it some more in their fun time.


----------



## Spatula

S'mon said:


> So you're saying that being sensitive to sexism, racism et al is a _bad thing_?



No, but patently absurd generalizations are.  California is a HUGE state, and when it comes down to it, the people populating its urban centers are not significantly different than those living in big cities in other US states - probably because a lot of them are transplants from those other states.  Ditto with the rural areas (of which CA has quite a lot of) and the suburbs.


----------



## Oni

Spatula said:


> An escapist pursuit that can be enjoyed by everyone.
> 
> I'm all for simulationism - up to the point where it impacts the fun.  Some folks enjoy the opportunity to succeed despite being beaten down by the world around them, but when only one person in the group is getting the beatdown... And in the case of male sexism vs females (or other forms of common discrimination), there's the added dimension of the female player already having to put up with the unpleasant situations in real life.  Not many people would want to deal with it some more in their fun time.





Just as I don't see a need to cut away those things we find disagreeable, neither do I see the need to rub someone's face in it either.  You do what any good DM does, focus on what the players enjoy and are interested in, not what they dislike or makes them uncomfortable.


----------



## Particle_Man

Didn't read 18 pages of threads.  

Stat-wise, there has been an evolution:

1st ed AD&D, male and female characters explicitly had different maximum strengths at char. gen.  

Don't remember if 2nd ed did away with this, but by 3rd ed. it was gone.

In 3.0, except for elves, females tended to be shorter than males.  Since height was tied somewhat to the jump skill for jumping up, women could not jump up quite as high as men.  In 3.5 this was pretty much fixed.  In 4.0 height is still tied to the Jump part of the Athletics skill, but height is no longer differentiated by gender.

In OD&D, B/X D&D, BXCMI D&D, I don't believe there were stat differences between men and women, although I could be wrong.

Mind you, this is looking at the crunch not the fluff.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

There are obviously some men in this thread who don't perceive sexism in D&D, on EN World, or in society.

Out of curiosity, are there any women in this thread who don't perceive sexism in D&D, on EN World, or in society?


----------



## Desdichado

Mathew_Freeman said:


> Thanks for spelling out your position in more detail.



You're welcome!


> Having spent time discussing these issues with my partner, I think that it's easy to misunderstand how your behaviour comes across to other people. I'm certainly not of the belief that you're a rampant sexist that thinks all women are beneath him and can be treated as objects or anything like that.



I'm certain of that too.  I'm also certain that the women I know (and I know quite a few; I'm married to one, I have one as a daughter, a mother, a sister, a boss, etc.) aren't concerned with how I come across to them either.  So, for my purposes, I pass a quick lithmus test as non-sexist.


> You state that you don't think the people you game with are sexist, and I am sure you're probably right. Would you mind giving me a bit more detail about the make-up of the group - is it all male, a mix, and what sort of ages?



A mix, but mostly male.  We had two women, but one moved away.  We figured that the 2,000 mile commute was a bit much.  We're all between about 35-45 years of age.


> In terms of whether or not Western society is sexist - we're going to have to agree to disagree on that. If you take a look at the sites linked to earlier in the thread, you can certainly see that there is a lot of analysis of current issues, focusing on a sexism angle. I find it hard to believe that you could spend some time reading those blogs and not admit that there is a problem with sexism in society, even if we differ in terms of how much of a problem it is.



There's a few points: instances of sexism do not a sexist society make.  Society is made up of individuals.  Individuals can be sexist in a non-sexist society.

I think the most compelling argument is the sputtering feminist movement in Western society.  I've read a number of articles on the subject, of this new wave of feminists, and how frankly, they're struggling for an identity.  And why is that?  Basically, its because the prior wave of feminists got what they wanted.  There's nothing else left to go after that's not nitpicking, or even worse, payback for past wrongs or something.

Is there work to be done on an individual level?  Yeah, sure, always.  Is there work to be done on a societal level?  You'll have a hard row to hoe to convince me that that's the case.  Is there work to be done specifically in the gaming sub-culture?  Eh, I'm not so sure about that still, but in terms of official products, I'm going to say no.  In terms of "are there a lot of mouth-breathing morons in the hobby who lack social skills?"  Well, yeah, I've seen my fair share.  However, I think misinterpreting their complete lack of social skills generally for a problem with sexism specifically is misdiagnosing the problem.


> Finally, to bring the issue back to gaming, I think it's clear (for me) that there are still problems within D&D as a gaming hobby in terms of sexism. I was thinking about the NPC's in _Keep on the Shadowfell_, and it's notable that the priest in Winterhaven is female, whereas the Lord is male. I also noted that the Lord's wife is not mentioned at all, presumably as the adventure writer didn't think she would be relevant to the game.
> 
> This isn't, per se, something I would say is blatantly sexist and a huge problem, but it is indicative of the wider attitudes that permeate gaming and D&D, and as such it is worth bringing up.



Whereas I, on the other hand, don't think it's indicative of anything at all.  Or rather; the fact that you call that out as an example of a problem is indicative of why I struggle to take this call to action seriously.

Sexism, inasmuch as it is an imposition on members of one sex to put up with behavior that makes them uncomfortable or unhappy, is rightly to be condemned and eradicated from our own suite of behavior patterns.  However, there comes a point when sensitivity to percieved *isms that are not intended become the imposition on everyone else.  I think sensitivity to sexism _in general_ is crossing that line today.  Sensitivity to sexism in _specific cases_, of course, is subject to a great deal more variability.


----------



## Ariosto

I have gone over the original D&D set and found no references to "women's lib". I have found the following references to sex:

Volume 1:
The only sample character, Xylarthen, is male.
"The charisma score is usable to decide such things as whether or not a witch capturing a player will turn him into a swine or keep him enchanted as a lover." (Note that this is an obvious reference to Circe, ruler of Aeaea in Greek myth.)

Volume 2:
Dragons -- "If two or more dragons are encountered they will be mated pair ..."
Lycanthropes -- note similar to that concerning dragons
Minotaurs -- "The Minotaur is classically a bull-headed man (and all of us who have debated rules are well acquainted with such)."
Centaurs -- notes on demographics in lair; "Females are not generally armed and will not fight, and the young are also non-combatant, except in life-and-death situations."
Unicorns -- "Only a maiden (in the strictest sense of the term) of pure and noble heart may approach the fierce and elusive Unicorn. Unicorns may be ridden by maiden-warriors and will obey them."
Rocs -- sexuality implied by possible presence in lair of eggs, chicks, etc..

Volume 3 and Reference Sheets: nothing

In addition to the above, "masculine" pronouns are used by default in keeping with conventional English-language grammar of the time. Titles are also uniformly given only in masculine form, e.g., Patriarch (but not Matriarch) for a high-level cleric.


----------



## Ariosto

Note that OD&D books I have on hand are a late printing, so it's possible that some reference to "women's lib" was expurgated along with most explicit Tolkien references.


----------



## Ariosto

It's mildly interesting that the one game-mechanical recognition of player-character sex in the original set is an advantage (potential acquisition of a Unicorn steed) for females.

The illustrations are mainly of monsters. Female characters are in a minority, especially with the insertion of an all-male party in place of the removed Balrog entry. On the other hand, they convey the message (to borrow a movie line), "I'm not good; I'm just drawn by someone more talented than Greg Bell." (The artist signed "Cookie" -- C. Corey? -- in particular evinces more skill, even if only at copying.)


----------



## Spatula

Oni said:


> Just as I don't see a need to cut away those things we find disagreeable, neither do I see the need to rub someone's face in it either.  You do what any good DM does, focus on what the players enjoy and are interested in, not what they dislike or makes them uncomfortable.



Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, but what's the point of including unpleasant setting elements (sexism, etc.) if they're never encountered by the players?  They might as well not exist in that case.


----------



## shilsen

DrunkonDuty said:


> Wow, what a long thread. But I've gotten to the end.




Some of you are damn patient readers! I am too when it comes to work-related stuff, but I can't recall the last time I made it through a thread this size post by post. Good thing I started this one  



> So let me just say:
> 
> Great thread.
> 
> In general terms I'd have to agree with the OP and the others (Proserpine, Matthew Freedman* and Canis to name the ones I can remember.) I won't add my .02 cents worth, the above mentioned posters (and others!) have said everything I would want to say and in much more erudite ways than I could. And I have learnt two new words: cisgender and solipsism. Cool stuff. Oh and Shilsen, thanks for offering a few solutions to the issues at hand.




Thanks. Glad you liked it, and I esp. liked that you picked up (and apparently so did some others) a couple of new words due to it. 



> I can respond to Lanefan's question about female roles in a campaign.
> 
> ...




Woah! That's some pretty detailed numbers. And I tend to do that with keeping NPC lists too 



> Historically speaking, the list of previous monarchs has 11 names, of whom only 4 are female. After I realised this I expressed my _mea culpa_ by making the female monarchs more interesting.








> The non-dwarves are where the real disparity seems to leak in: 56 names, of whom only 17 are female. But then in this case the human and giant societies are meant to be something of a contrast to the dwarves.




Well, that's a reasonable way to do it. Differences in gender norms is a good way to differentiate the various intelligent species that inhabit the D&D world.



dbm said:


> I want to share an experience that I had.




Interesting story. I've never LARPed myself. Too lazy  



> I'm not advocating the use of RPGs as instructional aides, but emersive gaming is a powerful tool in exploring society's problems and learning how you personally can overcome them in your dealings with people.




I've seen some good discussions (and some not so good ones) on ENWorld on similar subjects. And speaking of RPGs as instructional aids, I've run a quick freeform RPG session in a freshman comp class (so 25 players!) to illustrate a bunch of things. Worked pretty well and got students thinking about language, identity, gender, person-to-person interaction and other issues in interesting ways.



Oni said:


> It is the nature of people to separate, classify, and stratify pretty much everything based on what makes them different, or inversely group together by what makes them the same.




That I'll agree with.  



> If the humans of some fantasy world are just that, human, then the basics of human nature need apply if we are to relate to them as such.  If you start exorcising the faults and foible of humanity just because they are repugnant or offensive, then what do you have left when your done?  Real world sexism is relevant as it lies in the nature of humanity create such constructs.  I think you would write us better than we are, I would rather write us simply as we are.  I think those are both legitimate approaches.




If you take a look at the "solutions" post I made a couple pages earlier, what I'm advocating is not the total absence of gender roles but the avoidance of using one particular form of sexism as the implicit or explicit norm. Generally, the form of sexism that I see in D&D products is patriarchal sexism, with males presented as both the movers and shakers and masculinity as the norm. That's what I have issues with. As for writing us better than we are, I wouldn't say that's what I'm doing. I'm saying that in a fantasy setting which is patently not the real world, where the humans in it will have experienced drastically different things than any culture in our world, there's a pretty good argument for writing different and more variant forms of sexism if you're going to have it. And the added bonus that it makes the game world(s) less exclusionary towards a real-world gender is, well, a bonus in my book. 



Bumbles said:


> Oh, and before I forget, I should note that one thing I've noticed in this thread is people using the same or similar words, but not meaning quite the same things.
> 
> Some of the disagreement may arise from that miscommunication.  So just a head's up on that issue.




That's something I'm definitely aware of, which is why I've been clarifying my definitions every so often, but in a thread this long some of the miscommunication is unfortunately a given, I think. Hell, people can't agree about what "ranger" and "munchkin" mean, so "sexism" is sure to lead to some divergence in definition 



Spatula said:


> An escapist pursuit that can be enjoyed by everyone.
> 
> I'm all for simulationism - up to the point where it impacts the fun.  Some folks enjoy the opportunity to succeed despite being beaten down by the world around them, but when only one person in the group is getting the beatdown... And in the case of male sexism vs females (or other forms of common discrimination), there's the added dimension of the female player already having to put up with the unpleasant situations in real life.  Not many people would want to deal with it some more in their fun time.




That's basically how I see it.



Oni said:


> Just as I don't see a need to cut away those things we find disagreeable, neither do I see the need to rub someone's face in it either.  You do what any good DM does, focus on what the players enjoy and are interested in, not what they dislike or makes them uncomfortable.




Agreed, but when we're talking about the presentation of the basic game in general (and by that I include the core rules - which we've generally agreed are quite non-sexist - and the campaign settings and the modules and the miniatures), then certain decisions have to be made about what direction to go, since they obviously can't adapt the way an individual campaign or DM can.



Particle_Man said:


> Didn't read 18 pages of threads.




Can't say I blame ya 



> Stat-wise, there has been an evolution:
> 
> ...
> 
> Mind you, this is looking at the crunch not the fluff.




Agreed. I think this is why one of the areas of consensus on this thread seems to be that mechanically the game is quite egalitarian to the sexes. Half-elves, on the other hand, got the shaft!



Jeff Wilder said:


> There are obviously some men in this thread who don't perceive sexism in D&D, on EN World, or in society.
> 
> Out of curiosity, are there any women in this thread who don't perceive sexism in D&D, on EN World, or in society?




Good question. I'm curious about that too.



Hobo said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> I'm certain of that too.  I'm also certain...




I could get nitpicky about arguments I have with your post, but that's not particularly constructive. Suffice to say, as I noted earlier, that we definitely have very different positions about the existence, effects, and need (or, according to you, lack of need) for redress of sexism in society.



Ariosto said:


> I have gone over the original D&D set and found no references to "women's lib".




Okay. I'm hoping someone pops in and posts it, if they find it.



> I have found the following references to sex:




Interesting info. Thanks.


----------



## Ariosto

Near the end of the example of play in Vol.3, the referee is referred to as "he". I first lumped that with examples of old-fashioned "sexist" grammar -- but it was avoided (for instance with sentence fragments) up to that point.

Basically, there was no apparent effort to use "inclusive" language. Nowadays, I think there would probably be a conscious alternation of references to "she" and "her" in such a text.

(That can get a bit odd, too. The black female judge seems to have become a Hollywood cliché that draws attention to its tokenism by being so out of proportion.)


----------



## ProfessorCirno

As someone who works extensively in psychology, specifically social psychology, this thread has had posts that make me either cry or scream in rage.  Or both.

And was that a link to the wikipedia article on Evolutionary Psychology?  I just _vomited all my blood_.

Well, let's quote something from that link.

"Applying evolutionary theory to animal behavior is uncontroversial. However, adaptationist approaches to human psychology are contentious, with critics questioning the scientific nature of evolutionary psychology, and with more minor debates within the field itself"

Evolutionary psychology is *highly* controversial, with more and more people in the field looking down and distancing themselves from it.  Far too often the theories it brings forth are either not testable or, worst, not falsifiable.  There's been reported cases where their own results did not support the hypothesis or justify the conclusions, _yet they print them nonetheless_.  I have no doubts that given time, it will be as well received as _phrenology_.

*Ahem*

As for sexism in the game, I think it's going down.  There's a difference between looking _sexy_ and looking _sexual_.  The problem with most representations of women is that they go into the latter, not content with the former.  Personally, I like my women smart, and _dressed_ smart.  That said, I do like settings where there's contentiousness about gender roles.  Maybe one kingdom is very male oriented, but they border another country where there's a very strong matriarchy.  Conflict is fuel for history, after all, and history is what makes your setting come to life.

Oh, and as for "They need to market to men!" then explain to me why _FATAL_ has not sold millions.


----------



## Betote

ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh, and as for "They need to market to men!" then explain to me why _FATAL_ has not sold millions.




Because there's still hope for the human race.


----------



## Oni

ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh, and as for "They need to market to men!" then explain to me why _FATAL_ has not sold millions.




Because men aren't buying what FATAL is selling.  I mean really, how many men want to spend their evening sitting around rolling and cross referencing a chart to find out areola size.  

I respect a person's right to create what they want, as long as they respect my right to be completely creeped out by it and and use it as an example of the worst game ever created.


----------



## WisdomLikeSilence

As a woman who has been playing D&D for 20 years, I just wanted to take a moment and thank Shilsen, not only for starting this thread, but for following up with such tact and thoughtfulness.

It's wonderful to have you representing the issues so well.


----------



## Umbran

ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh, and as for "They need to market to men!" then explain to me why _FATAL_ has not sold millions.




Because real men don't think like that, even if many of them like to see the occasional chainmail bikini.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

And yet FATAL is little more then stereotypes and tropes that are consistant with what is thought of being "what a guy wants" as was stated by others in this thread - lots of math, lots of crunch, lots of objectification of women.  My point is that they're just that - false stereotypes.  If it was truly neccisary to market the game to "guys" in that fashion, then FATAL should be a best seller.  Clearly, however, it is _not_.  And therein lies the difficulty in trying to state what "real men" like.  There is no barameter for being a "real man," taste-wise.  Oh sure, there's lots of tough guy postering, but the second something like FATAL comes up, everyone blanches and turns away.  What happened to guys loving crunch, math, and sexism?  Suddenly it's _not_ that strong.

Either in this or in one of the associated threads, someone said that if D&D stopped showing women in sexual positions and dress, it would somehow _lose sales._  Does anyone honestly think D&D would lose sales if it showed a woman in actual armor instead of in a chain mail bikini?


----------



## Ycore Rixle

shilsen said:


> Actually, it's a major part of the sexism debate which I'm very aware of, and a part which I think is either wrong or misapplied and usually both. In the context of this thread, I personally think it's also irrelevant.




Fair enough. I thought from your reply to KM and your subsequent silence that you had never heard of it. As for being irrelevant to the thread, it seems the thread has changed a lot since the original post.



> In short, since I am commenting on the existence of sexism in a fantasy world, which is inhabited by creatures that are patently _not_ the same as real world humanity (and humans in the D&D world, if simply by reason of the fact that sexual dimorphism is much smaller - if not non-existent - there, are not really like real-world humans either) and have certainly not experienced the same history and cultural development as humans in the real world, any difference in real world cognitive abilities wouldn't matter.




But you started this thread to talk about sexism "in the settings, the marketing of the game, the general climate of the game, and even on sites such as ENWorld." (The quote is from your OP). Are you now saying that this thread is only about the settings? Like many of the posts in this thread, the ground keeps shifting. 



> As Canis commented, that's just an example of really bad science. Which is only one reason why I think it has no impact on how we should look at sexism in RPGs.




Canis was not right. He didn't even provide any evidence or research. He just stated his opinion. There's a lot to look at, but if you look at even just the slideshow debate from two Harvard psychologists that I posted, one thing you can point to is Spelke referring to herself and her own research. Pinker has a mountain of historical evidence to point to. Now it's not necessarily bad science to quote yourself, but it should always raise suspicion. Honestly, to call Pinker the practitioner of bad science requires more than just a handwave. He's a named chair at Harvard, for gosh sakes. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Simply stating that the variance is small in a lot of studies, without providing any research or any links, is hardly scientific! In fact, that lack of rigorous argument, and not evolutionary psychology, is bad science.




> Even if (and that's a big if) biological hard-wired sexism existed, what sort of influence it has is so heavily mediated and overwhelmed by social and cultural (and, most importantly, individual) influences that I think they're irrelevant here.




I don't know what "they" refers to. The influence of hard-wired sexism?

You seem to be thinking that the research only supports the first clause of your sentence (if biological sexism exists). But the research says exactly what you claim isn't true in your second clause (that biological sexism outweighs in many cases environmental influences). Maybe that's just your sentence structure.

I get that you don't think it's good science. But it seems like you don't understand what it is saying in the first place. Again, that could be my misreading though. I just wanted to make sure that, as much as possible, we're on the same page here.




> That's almost exclusively cultural.




That's a myth. There are consistent sex trends across cultures and time. One hundred percent? No, not one hundred percent. That's why they're trends. There are exceptions. But there's a reason that mythology was brought up in this thread. Because there are consistent, stable-over-time-and-culture sex trends. We see them even know in things like profession and career choice. I know you honestly believe there aren't these trends, though. Maybe you could tell me why.



> Speaking for myself, I don't think it's true, because the science seems really poorly one. Canis, who's much more well-educated on the subject than me, asserts that it is and I believe him.




But Proserpine said that she didn't care if the science were good or not. That was my point. That's a declaration pregnant with enormous implications. It sounds like you actually do care if the science is good. Also, I would recommend reading the research yourself rather than taking someone's word for it. It's accessible, and as you say, you're used to humanities-speak. 



> There is not a single quality considered masculine or feminine in one place right now which has not, at some point, been considered the opposite elsewhere.




No doubt. There are six billion people in the world right now! Or more. Someone, somewhere, considers cheese wheels to be alien spy machines. 

But we're talking about trends here. Not instances. 



> So, no - I don't see how sexism is caused by biology.




Hm. Do you mean you don't see how it is caused, or how it could be caused?

If it's the first, fair enough. No one understands how consciousness arises. So no one claims (I don't think) to know how sexism is caused by biology.

But could it be caused by biology? Is there a possibility that it could? There certainly is. First of all, there are physical, measurable differences between the male and female brain. Hormones, for one! Hormones are huge! Right there, that is enough to show how sexism could be caused by biology. But there are also things like the preoptic area and suprachiasmatic nucleus of the hypothalamus. Here's an article on the preoptic area.

So, I can understand not seeing how sexism is linked to biology. But that it _could _be - an idea which you seem to dismiss out of hand - is obvious from the research. There are zillions of mechanisms for it.

Hm, so the Larry Summers question: Do you think it's worth researching, this idea that sexism might be biological?



> That's a big assumption. What you're describing as the facts of the world are things which I don't think are the facts of the world, and are rather both a misunderstanding and a misrepresentation of them. And that is why we are differing here, not because you are focusing on the facts of the world and I am (or Proserpine is) not.




I assumed that facts weren't important to Proserpine because she said that even if the science were true, she wouldn't care. 

I actually think that the reason we were disagreeing is because we were not talking about evidence. Frankly I probably would have lost interest by now if we were just arguing over whose statistics are better. But what I very much wish to argue for is the triumph of evidence, and science, and facts. As long as we're in agreement that the question (is there a biological basis for sexism?) should not be settled by what people think is true, but what the measureable, physical science says is true, then we have common ground.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Ycore Rixle said:


> He's a named chair at Harvard, for gosh sakes




I feel the need to jump in and point out that this may not mean everything you're implying.  Lawrence Summers was _president_ of Harvard, yet had to resign when he stated that the two highest reasons for seeing less women then men in sciences and engineering was due to 1) women being inherently more lazy, and 2) men just being inherently better at both fields.

I'm not going to say anything about Pinkerton (other then the fact that he's an _evolutionary psychologist_), for the sake if simplicity, but simply having a high position does not make you more qualified or intelligent then others.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

ProfessorCirno said:


> And was that a link to the wikipedia article on Evolutionary Psychology?  I just _vomited all my blood_.




Yikes! 

It's germane to the topic. It has a lot to say about how sexism manifests in games. The Ultimatum Game, for example, is important.

It seems like you're suggesting that I was either mean-spirited or ignorant to post that link. I assure you that I'm not the former! I thought the link would help a lot of people to at least know of the field. There are probably many who are reading this thread - not you, since you work in the field - who had not heard of evolutionary psychology. No problem if people don't agree with it. But I didn't mean to make you vomit all (or even part!) of your blood. I just think it's important to be able to share ideas.




> There's been reported cases where their own results did not support the hypothesis or justify the conclusions, _yet they print them nonetheless_.




There's no monolithic "they," as you actually pointed out yourself earlier in that paragraph. Can you show some articles that report data different from what was gathered? Because that other stuff you're talking about - cases where results did not support the hypothesis - is science as usual. 



> I have no doubts that given time, it will be as well received as _phrenology_.




Or, maybe, _evolution_. 

It was probably hyperbole on your part, so this isn't meant particularly in response to that. But it brings it up. The "no doubts" attitude is a little rampant in this thread. I think we all need a big, giant dose of humility. Let's face it, people, we could all be totally wrong. Every idea needs to be given fair consideration, and well-meaning people can disagree and still be well-meaning.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

ProfessorCirno said:


> I feel the need to jump in and point out that this may not mean everything you're implying.  Lawrence Summers was _president_ of Harvard, yet had to resign when he stated that the two highest reasons for seeing less women then men in sciences and engineering was due to 1) women being inherently more lazy, and 2) men just being inherently better at both fields.
> 
> I'm not going to say anything about Pinkerton (other then the fact that he's an _evolutionary psychologist_), for the sake if simplicity, but simply having a high position does not make you more qualified or intelligent then others.




I didn't say he shouldn't be questioned. For gosh sakes, Spelke is _also _a named chair at Harvard. And I'm questioning her, in this thread. So, yeah, I think it's great to question named chairs at Harvard.

What I actually said was that dismissing them requires more than a handwave. _Some_ consideration should be given to the fact that these are people who devote their lives to the field, are clearly very intelligent, and are clearly highly valued and respected by their peers in the field. There's probably a reason for their position, and they probably have good intentions and are honest. So to disregard them without a bit of an argument, I think, is irresponsible.


----------



## Bumbles

And this folks, is why I only linked, and refused to argue over it.

I'm sure y'all mean well and all, but you're not going to settle it here.


----------



## Lwaxy

Lanefan said:


> 1. For thems as have been posting in here, in your own games, how often do players run PCs not of their own gender?  And what results do you get?




All the time. I encourage it. Usually, in the smaller groups I ask for a male and a female character per player. It works out normally, although in the beginning the ideas of males how a female would act and why and vice versa tended to be a bit off.


----------



## Lwaxy

Jeff Wilder said:


> Out of curiosity, are there any women in this thread who don't perceive sexism in D&D, on EN World, or in society?




I already said in my first post on here that I've never encountered sexism in D&D other than in game settings we chose. And unless I need to count males who prefer to see half naked women in fantasy art, I haven't seen any on EN World either. 

In society, yes. But not only towards females.


----------



## pawsplay

Spatula said:


> An escapist pursuit that can be enjoyed by everyone.
> 
> I'm all for simulationism - up to the point where it impacts the fun.  Some folks enjoy the opportunity to succeed despite being beaten down by the world around them, but when only one person in the group is getting the beatdown... And in the case of male sexism vs females (or other forms of common discrimination), there's the added dimension of the female player already having to put up with the unpleasant situations in real life.  Not many people would want to deal with it some more in their fun time.




There are probably few things as hellish as experiencing a vision of Utopia created by someone whose values differ substantially from your own.


----------



## Ariosto

Lwaxy said:
			
		

> I've never encountered sexism in D&D other than in game settings we chose.



How much perceptions of what the game is "about" now depend on such commercial products is something to take into account. When creating one's own campaign was par for the course, presentation of any aspect in the basic rule books was moderated by the advice that "the best way is to decide how you would like it to be, and then make it just that way!"

The widespread use of someone else's extensively detailed "world" as a setting introduces a cumulative effect of details on the impression one gets. The more the game is bound to such definitions, the more important it is to consider the reception they are likely to get in different quarters.

There's a fine line to walk, if (as I think) a perennial part of the appeal of D&D is its fundamentally wide-open nature. TSR at first figured that aspect bode poorly for the sales of scenarios -- but was quickly proven wrong by Judges Guild. Aridáni and Hriháyal aside, Tékumel is probably too culturally exotic for the tamer brand image long since settled upon. As great diversity (each variation in which would offend someone, somewhere) is unlikely, the key should be to minimize off-putting elements in what's homogenized. If Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, etc., are ALL turn-offs in the same way, then the segment turned off that way might easily turn away to other games (or from the hobby altogether).


----------



## S'mon

Spatula said:


> Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here, but what's the point of including unpleasant setting elements (sexism, etc.) if they're never encountered by the players?  They might as well not exist in that case.




Like the DMG2 advice suggests, a viable technique is to have a setting that is sexist/patriarchal/gender-normed, but for some reason that only applies to (most) female NPCs, not to PCs.  This isn't a huge stretch - while all real cultures have gender differentiation, it's not so uncommon to have a norm that people are to be treated the way they behave, if that differs from the role they were born in.  So a competent female fighter is treated the same as other, male, fighters.  Wizards are treated as wizards, whether male or female.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Jeff Wilder said:


> There are obviously some men in this thread who don't perceive sexism in D&D, on EN World, or in society.
> 
> Out of curiosity, are there any women in this thread who don't perceive sexism in D&D, on EN World, or in society?




I would be really, really interested to hear about this.


----------



## S'mon

shilsen said:


> Suffice to say, as I noted earlier, that we definitely have very different positions about the existence, effects, and need (or, according to you, lack of need) for redress of sexism in society.




Some of us don't subscribe to Critical Theory/Political Correctness/Frankfurt School Marxism or even feminism - doesn't mean we don't want female players to enjoy our games.


----------



## S'mon

ProfessorCirno said:


> ADoes anyone honestly think D&D would lose sales if it showed a woman in actual armor instead of in a chain mail bikini?




What is this, 1979?  Where have you been the last 30 years?


----------



## S'mon

ProfessorCirno said:


> simply having a high position does not make you more qualified or intelligent then others.




That would equally apply to Pinker's enemies.

For the record, I'm on the Pinker side of this debate, I don't think the Boas/Stephen Jay Gould side of the human nature vs nurture debate have any interest in the empirical evidence.  

I also think this debate is clearly political and not appropriate for ENW.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

S'mon said:


> So you're saying that being sensitive to sexism, racism et al is a _bad thing_?




No, just that Californians being stereotyped as being sensitive to sexism, racism, et al is discriminatory to Californians who *are* insensitive to such things!

Pity the poor Chula Vista Klansman!  Or the Mendocino Misogynist!


----------



## Hussar

Oni said:


> Because men aren't buying what FATAL is selling.  I mean really, how many men want to spend their evening sitting around rolling and cross referencing a chart to find out areola size.
> 
> I respect a person's right to create what they want, as long as they respect my right to be completely creeped out by it and and use it as an example of the worst game ever created.




Y'know, I REALLY have to buy this game sometime, just to read it.  Good grief, i've never seen it, but, man, does reading things like this make me want to.    Kinda like wanting to see burning cars on the side of the road.  



			
				Hobo said:
			
		

> I think the most compelling argument is the sputtering feminist movement in Western society. I've read a number of articles on the subject, of this new wave of feminists, and how frankly, they're struggling for an identity. And why is that? Basically, its because the prior wave of feminists got what they wanted. There's nothing else left to go after that's not nitpicking, or even worse, payback for past wrongs or something.




Reminds me of a Simpsons episode where there is a Gay Pride parade where one of the marchers jumps in front of Homer and says something to the effect of "I'm gay and I'm here!" and Homer replies, "Yeah, so?  You've been here for years.  Ok, you're here!"  Always made me chuckle.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

S'mon said:


> That would equally apply to Pinker's enemies.
> 
> For the record, I'm on the Pinker side of this debate, I don't think the Boas/Stephen Jay Gould side of the human nature vs nurture debate have any interest in the empirical evidence.
> 
> I also think this debate is clearly political and not appropriate for ENW.




Yeah. I'm surprised the mods have let it go on so long. But as long as it's here, I feel  compelled to reply, as if my silence would imply assent. Or maybe I'm just the guy in the XKCD strip.

BTW, Professor Cirno, what you posted about Larry Summers is incorrect. He did not say what you said he did. Although I grant you that the difference, while tremendously important, is apparently very hard for some people to see (or perhaps to acknowledge).


----------



## Umbran

ProfessorCirno said:


> And yet FATAL is little more then stereotypes and tropes that are consistant with what is thought of being "what a guy wants" as was stated by others in this thread - lots of math, lots of crunch, lots of objectification of women.  My point is that they're just that - false stereotypes.  If it was truly neccisary to market the game to "guys" in that fashion, then FATAL should be a best seller.




Um, no.  That's logic of, "since a little bit is good, a _lot_ must be better" - if I like a scoop of ice cream, then I must really want to buy a 17-scoop mega-sundae!  It sounds logical, but does not regularly hold up in the real world.  A small amount of something may be pleasing, while a larger amount of it makes us want to throw up. 

Especially when many would say there's a qualitative difference between the sexism of chainmail-bikini art, and some of the really misogynistic stuff in FATAL.  Thus, the analogy fails.



> Does anyone honestly think D&D would lose sales if it showed a woman in actual armor instead of in a chain mail bikini?




Does anyone here honestly have the expertise in marketing and the demographic data on D&D sales to be able to make a well-informed judgment on that?


----------



## Rel

I've been reading this thread for days and done some lengthy soul searching and introspection.  I've come to the conclusion that I think of the majority of females as basically inferior to me.

But then I think of the majority of everybody as basically inferior to me.  So I must be the very model of egalitarianism!

Yay!

I'm awesome.


----------



## Lwaxy

Ariosto said:


> How much perceptions of what the game is "about" now depend on such commercial products is something to take into account....
> 
> The widespread use of someone else's extensively detailed "world" as a setting introduces a cumulative effect of details on the impression one gets...




Indeed. 

We've always adapted the worlds we played in to a certain degree as to minimize problems, and I usually ask my players which, if any, gender or racial unbalanced settings they want to keep. Or if they'd like to turn things the other way round. A few times they did want to turn it around, which didn't change game play at all but made the worlds more fascinating. The only down point is that you can't use all official material as it is, but it isn't hard to adapt either. 

I found that very often, players of both genders care little about sexism in a game setting. They just want to play. And there are always ways to go around it in-game.


----------



## Lanefan

DrunkonDuty said:


> I can respond to Lanefan's question about female roles in a campaign.
> 
> My main campaign that I have been running for some years now has been a conscious attempt on my part to make gender neutral campaign setting. My NPC list has 208 names on it. Of these 90 are female.  [...etc.]



I keep stats for just about everything in my game...except this.  Non-party NPCs are something that, other than the important historical or plot-based ones, I make up and wing as I go along...and often just as quickly forget.

In-party NPCs (i.e. hired muscle, significant rescuees, rent-a-Clerics, etc. that stick around long enough to actually earn ExP) I *do* have stats for, and so far in my current campaign it's a 12-12 tie.  The ratio of PCs so far is skewed heavily male; currently at 46-17 (many of those were quick deaths or early retirements), but if the players had stuck strictly to their own gender for every character they brought in it would be 53-10. (and the female player has had at least 2 male PCs so far)

The background, on the other hand, *is* sexist; somewhat intentionally so.  In the 1100-year history of the (Human) Empire that the PCs are trying to defend and rebuild the tattered remains of, there have been 51 butts on the throne.  50 were male.  (and the lone female, some 800 years ago, was arguably the most competent of the lot)  The truly significant power-broker NPCs the PCs have met or heard of are also male or assumed to be so...well, more correctly, were male; as they're all undead.  And power in other aspects of the Empire (trading, commerce, etc.) tends to be mostly held by men. One significant historical figure the PCs were sent to resurrect - the greatest military mind the Empire has known - was (and now is) female; so there's exceptions...but that's what they are: exceptions.

I usually have it that the NPC leaders within any given temple are the same gender as the deity (thus, Zeus types are usually male, Demeter types are usually female, etc.) mostly for simplicity.

Now if (when) the PCs start dealing with Elves, or with certain other Human cultures, they'll be in for a bit of culture shock.  Elven leaders are almost all female, and females hold most other types of power as well....

Lan-"do undead care about gender?"-efan


----------



## shilsen

ProfessorCirno said:


> As someone who works extensively in psychology, specifically social psychology, this thread has had posts that make me either cry or scream in rage.  Or both.
> 
> And was that a link to the wikipedia article on Evolutionary Psychology?  I just _vomited all my blood_.




  

You just about summed up Proserpine's response, I think. I tend to get less upset about such stuff, though I don't feel any the less strongly about it.



> I have no doubts that given time, it will be as well received as _phrenology_.








> As for sexism in the game, I think it's going down.  There's a difference between looking _sexy_ and looking _sexual_.  The problem with most representations of women is that they go into the latter, not content with the former.  Personally, I like my women smart, and _dressed_ smart.




Agreed on all counts. It's definitely better than it was. There's just scope for more improvement.



> That said, I do like settings where there's contentiousness about gender roles.  Maybe one kingdom is very male oriented, but they border another country where there's a very strong matriarchy.  Conflict is fuel for history, after all, and history is what makes your setting come to life.




As I (and others) have mentioned earlier, I think it's perfectly fine to have gender roles and sexism explored and presented in campaign settings. I just draw the line at it always (or very primarily) being patriarchies presented as the norm or even worse (in my estimation) patriarchy presented as the default without a second thought about it, so there's the veneer of it not being sexist even when it is.



> Oh, and as for "They need to market to men!" then explain to me why _FATAL_ has not sold millions.




While I agree with almost everything you stated, I wouldn't say that marketing to men, dumb as I may consider it, automatically leads to FATAL being a success. At least partly, as Betote says...



Betote said:


> Because there's still hope for the human race.




Yup. 



WisdomLikeSilence said:


> As a woman who has been playing D&D for 20 years, I just wanted to take a moment and thank Shilsen, not only for starting this thread, but for following up with such tact and thoughtfulness.
> 
> It's wonderful to have you representing the issues so well.




Thanks. That's very gratifying. I thought the subject needed a little discussion, and I've been working hard to keep it from being shut down or devolving into flame wars or overly political arguments. So far so good.

BTW, WisdomLikeSilence, would you care to expand a little on your thoughts on the subject, esp. whether you've seen sexism in the game or on ENWorld? I'm especially interested in whether you see the often implicit, sometimes explicit, "this is for the boys" vibe I'm often criticizing.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Either in this or in one of the associated threads, someone said that if D&D stopped showing women in sexual positions and dress, it would somehow _lose sales._  Does anyone honestly think D&D would lose sales if it showed a woman in actual armor instead of in a chain mail bikini?




Going by some of the comments on the thread, apparently some people do 



Ycore Rixle said:


> Fair enough. I thought from your reply to KM and your subsequent silence that you had never heard of it. As for being irrelevant to the thread, it seems the thread has changed a lot since the original post.
> 
> But you started this thread to talk about sexism "in the settings, the marketing of the game, the general climate of the game, and even on sites such as ENWorld." (The quote is from your OP). Are you now saying that this thread is only about the settings? Like many of the posts in this thread, the ground keeps shifting.




I think we're talking about many different things at once, since this is a large, complicated and contentious topics, and emphasizing different things at different points. So I think it's safe to say, especially when someone is replying to some other poster's individual points, that different areas may be focused on.

That said, here's my position on the subject that you've been raising, namely biological hard-wired sexism. I'm clarifying this to make my position clear and also to explain why I'm not going to argue about it any further with you. The primary reason that I'm not going to argue is because, as Bumbles noted, none of us (or the other people on different sides of the divide) are going to persuade the other about our positions, esp. on an internet forum. A smaller reason is that I don't really see it as relevant to this issue of sexism in gaming, as I noted before. I'm also not quite sure that you and I are using "sexism" in exactly the same way. 

To clarify, when I refer to sexism in general and in the game, I do _not_ mean differences between the sexes. What I mean by sexism is (stealing heavily from Merriam-Webster here) prejudice/discrimination based on sex, and esp. (with regard to this thread) behavior, conditions and attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. An important element in my definition of sexism, again esp. where this thread is concerned, is the assumption that masculinity or male positions/attitudes are the norm.

So, for me, the existence (or not) of biological difference is immaterial because it does not and cannot justify sexism. Even _if_ there are broad trends of any kind, to justify the exclusion or marginalization of an individual based on them is, to me, fundamentally wrong because it means you stop treating the individual as an individual. And it seems especially ludicrous to me for it to be an issue in a game which is about the use of the imagination, since it is tantamount to saying that certain individuals, because of their sex, are actually incapable of using their imagination in a way which is required. 

I hope that sums up my position on the subject well enough, but even if not, I'm going to avoid this argument, as I said. It's simply not worth it to me, just like arguing with Hobo about whether sexism exists in society or not wouldn't be useful in this thread, and I fundamentally don't see it as germane.



> The "no doubts" attitude is a little rampant in this thread. I think we all need a big, giant dose of humility. Let's face it, people, we could all be totally wrong. Every idea needs to be given fair consideration, and well-meaning people can disagree and still be well-meaning.




I don't know about the "no doubts" attitude, but I agree about giving all ideas fair consideration. Something I'm consistently trying to take into account is the fact that people whose attitudes I see as fostering something which I abhor (sexism, in this case) are often completely honest and well-intentioned in their opinions. Where I am disagreeing with you specifically is in our estimation of what ideas are actually relevant to this discussion, but that isn't surprising since we have a lot of people taking very different tacks on the subject.



Bumbles said:


> And this folks, is why I only linked, and refused to argue over it.
> 
> I'm sure y'all mean well and all, but you're not going to settle it here.




Agreed, which is why I quit on the arguing about it too. 

Well, specifically about that subject


----------



## shilsen

Lwaxy said:


> All the time. I encourage it. Usually, in the smaller groups I ask for a male and a female character per player. It works out normally, although in the beginning the ideas of males how a female would act and why and vice versa tended to be a bit off.




Personally, I find that the ideas of males about how another male who isn't them should act are off too. And females about males/females too. Most people just aren't that good at working out what makes others tick, which is why the whole "I don't want players to play different genders because they do it badly" argument doesn't fly for me. I think people don't play their own genders very well  



pawsplay said:


> There are probably few things as hellish as experiencing a vision of Utopia created by someone whose values differ substantially from your own.




Good point. Agreed.



Ariosto said:


> The widespread use of someone else's extensively detailed "world" as a setting introduces a cumulative effect of details on the impression one gets. The more the game is bound to such definitions, the more important it is to consider the reception they are likely to get in different quarters.
> 
> There's a fine line to walk, if (as I think) a perennial part of the appeal of D&D is its fundamentally wide-open nature. TSR at first figured that aspect bode poorly for the sales of scenarios -- but was quickly proven wrong by Judges Guild. Aridáni and Hriháyal aside, Tékumel is probably too culturally exotic for the tamer brand image long since settled upon. As great diversity (each variation in which would offend someone, somewhere) is unlikely, the key should be to minimize off-putting elements in what's homogenized. If Dragonlance, Forgotten Realms, etc., are ALL turn-offs in the same way, then the segment turned off that way might easily turn away to other games (or from the hobby altogether).




That's generally my take on it. One of the things I do enjoy about D&D is its versatility, and I think that versatility is somewhat compromised if one works with some of the implicit (and sometimes explicit) assumptions that I've been saying I see in it. Though of course some of those assumptions are also foisted on the game by (some in) the gaming community at large.



S'mon said:


> Like the DMG2 advice suggests, a viable technique is to have a setting that is sexist/patriarchal/gender-normed, but for some reason that only applies to (most) female NPCs, not to PCs.  This isn't a huge stretch - while all real cultures have gender differentiation, it's not so uncommon to have a norm that people are to be treated the way they behave, if that differs from the role they were born in.  So a competent female fighter is treated the same as other, male, fighters.  Wizards are treated as wizards, whether male or female.




I think that's actually the way many (most?) groups which play in settings featuring evident sexist elements play. It's a lot better than the "this is the way things are so deal with it" approach.



S'mon said:


> Some of us don't subscribe to Critical Theory/Political Correctness/Frankfurt School Marxism or even feminism - doesn't mean we don't want female players to enjoy our games.




Sure. I think at least part of the reason for the diverse opinions/positions in the thread is that some people are focusing on their own games and others are talking about gaming (or D&D) far outside their own campaigns. 



Rel said:


> I've been reading this thread for days and done some lengthy soul searching and introspection.  I've come to the conclusion that I think of the majority of females as basically inferior to me.
> 
> But then I think of the majority of everybody as basically inferior to me.  So I must be the very model of egalitarianism!
> 
> Yay!
> 
> I'm awesome.




That's generally my take on myself vis-a-vis everyone else, except I tend to not qualify it with "majority" 



Lwaxy said:


> I found that very often, players of both genders care little about sexism in a game setting. They just want to play. And there are always ways to go around it in-game.




I'd guess that players caring little about sexism in the setting would probably be much more common than not. That's one reason why I figured this conversation would draw more "Why does this matter? I don't give a damn" comments than it actually has.


----------



## Lwaxy

shilsen said:


> Personally, I find that the ideas of males about how another male who isn't them should act are off too. And females about males/females too. Most people just aren't that good at working out what makes others tick, which is why the whole "I don't want players to play different genders because they do it badly" argument doesn't fly for me. I think people don't play their own genders very well




Haha, now that you mention it, most new players do tend to have trouble there. 



shilsen said:


> I'd guess that players caring little about sexism in the setting would probably be much more common than not. That's one reason why I figured this conversation would draw more "Why does this matter? I don't give a damn" comments than it actually has.




Maybe the "don't give a damn" people went to the negative damn-giving scale and didn't even read this thread


----------



## Bumbles

shilsen said:


> Personally, I find that the ideas of males about how another male who isn't them should act are off too. And females about males/females too. Most people just aren't that good at working out what makes others tick, which is why the whole "I don't want players to play different genders because they do it badly" argument doesn't fly for me. I think people don't play their own genders very well




This may be true, but at least you don't have as much of a problem with how it appears to others.  A guy role-playing a guy badly isn't as likely to offend as the same guy playing a girl badly.  At least in my experience anyway.

A stigmata thing, I guess.   I suspect the same thing can go for cultures and other potential defining aspects of a character.  

This probably applies to actors and writers in the real world as well.

Which probably explains why Matt Groening is so successful parodying the Republican Party.


----------



## Hussar

> ...A stigmata thing....




Off topic - sorry, totally a personal pet peeve here.  Feel free to ignore.  Unless you're bleeding from your hands and feet, the word you were looking for was stigma.


----------



## Bumbles

Hussar said:


> Feel free to ignore.




I will then.

Me, I prefer to use stigma for parts of flowers.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

shilsen said:


> I'm also not quite sure that you and I are using "sexism" in exactly the same way.
> 
> To clarify, when I refer to sexism in general and in the game, I do _not_ mean differences between the sexes. What I mean by sexism is (stealing heavily from Merriam-Webster here) prejudice/discrimination based on sex, and esp. (with regard to this thread) behavior, conditions and attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. An important element in my definition of sexism, again esp. where this thread is concerned, is the assumption that masculinity or male positions/attitudes are the norm.




We definitely are not using "sexism" in exactly the same way. I went over that in my post on p.3, I think it is. 

I think that we can agree on this: If "sexism" means a) supposing one sex superior to the other, or b) judging an individual based on his membership in a collective rather than his own actions, then it is not welcome in D&D. However, I don't think that any of that sort of sexism is present to _any_ significance in D&D, on ENWorld, or anywhere else that you indicted in your original post. 



> Even if there are broad trends of any kind, to justify the exclusion or marginalization of an individual based on them is, to me, fundamentally wrong because it means you stop treating the individual as an individual.




Hallelujah! Preach on! Abso-[eric's grandma-censored]-lutely!

Trends say nothing about an individual. It is collectivism of the basest, most vile, most primitive sort to judge an individual based on his membership in a group that he did not choose to be in.

But again, there is no significant instance of that in D&D, or on ENWorld. This is a notably open, understanding, kind community. I'm thinking of Angelsboi and others. ENWorld has changed a fair amount over the last nine+ years, but it's been a great place all the way. I'm sorry, but I felt I had to defend it when I saw your original post calling it out for something that it does not do to any significant degree.

Anyway, we both agree that individuals should always be judged as individuals, and that we would not like to see D&D, RPGs in general, or ENWorld suggest otherwise.

What I object to is your implication that D&D, RPGs in general, and ENWorld are somehow doing a bad thing by engaging in "behavior, conditions, and attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex."

They're not. Are there trends? Yes. That's because, god bless the 21st century, this is the era of the geek and gaming is huge. It's a big place. Biological trends will show up. But that doesn't mean that anyone is doing anything wrong.

Is it possible to have "behavior, conditions, and attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex" in a bad way? Sure. But we're just nowhere near that. A stereotype does not force a mind. We're nowhere near the point where an average young kid coming into the game - or an average parent looking at it over his kid's shoulder - is going to think, "Yikes! My kid's going to learn to disdain, belittle, and demean women because of this game!" The truth is that the game is just fine.

Are there stereotypes in the game? Sure, they come up. But it's _ok_. Stereotypes don't force minds. We can laugh at stereotypes and enjoy them because we know they're not always true. We can use them in our art because sometimes they are true (Avenue Q has a great song about this). We can face them because we must: biology brought them and it's not taking them back. Far more dangerous than the occasional stereotype that comes up in our game is the idea that our game should be censored.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hussar said:


> Y'know, I REALLY have to buy this game sometime, just to read it.  Good grief, i've never seen it, but, man, does reading things like this make me want to.    Kinda like wanting to see burning cars on the side of the road.




No.  No, you don't need to do that to yourself, nor do you need to put money into the hands of the guys who designed that unpolished turd of a game.

Do a Google search for reviews of it.  Many are cleaned up to be hosted on sites like GameWyrd and RPGnet.

However, some actually present samples of the actual game text...the most infamous was posted at RPGnet and taken down- no doubt because of the rough language from both of the reviewers...AND the portions of the game quoted.

Its still exists- though because of said language, I won't link directly to it.

Look for it by combining a search for "FATAL" or "F.A.T.A.L." and RPGnet Wiki, and you'll find the review rebuttal by the game's creator...as well as a link to the review itself.

Along with a _clean_ discussion of F.A.T.A.L., you can see what some of the "also rans" for "Worst RPG Ever" were before it made its pooptastic appearance.

Worst RPGs ever - RPGnetWiki.

and its discussion as "The Game That Must Not Be Named"

http://wiki.rpg.net/index.php/RPG_Lexica:GHI

That should pretty much satisfy your curiosity.


----------



## shilsen

I'll post more later, but on the subject of dumb/sexist art in RPGs, I just saw this post  in the "Proper Use of Nudity in FRPG Art" thread and it cracked me up


----------



## Nifft

Hussar said:


> Off topic - sorry, totally a personal pet peeve here.  Feel free to ignore.  Unless you're bleeding from your hands and feet, the word you were looking for was stigma.



 ... and even then, you might prefer the word "eczema"*.

Cheers, -- N

*) Especially on a triple word score!


----------



## SteveC

ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh, and as for "They need to market to men!" then explain to me why _FATAL_ has not sold millions.



I have to ask, are you actually serious with that comment? Really? FATAL represents a game targeted at men? If that's the case, then the old Gor novels must have been far more appreciated than they appeared at the time.

Seriously: if FATAL is being set up as the game most aimed at men, then we have definitely found sexism on ENWorld, just perhaps not where we thought it would be. As a man, I find that notion both sexist and offensive. I seriously doubt that's what you intended, but that's what it reads as.

--Steve
(Edited for clarity)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

SteveC said:


> I have to ask, are you actually serious with that comment? Really? FATAL represents a game targeted at men? If that's the case, then the old Gor novels must have been far more appreciated than they appeared at the time.
> 
> Seriously: if FATAL is being set up as the game most aimed at men, then we have definitely found sexism on ENWorld, just perhaps not where we thought it would be. As a man, I find that notion both sexist and offensive. I seriously doubt that's what you intended, but that's what it reads as.
> 
> --Steve
> (Edited for clarity)




Actually, I have to agree that F.A.T.A.L. is a game targeted towards men.  Its so misogynistic that a woman who enjoys the game should probably be examined for some kind of pathology.

And I can agree that it is so far skewed in that regards that you could make a case for it being the RPG most aimed at men.

However, just because it is "the RPG _most_ aimed at men" doesn't mean its  "the RPG aimed at _most_ men."  In fact, I'd argue that it is the aimed at a vanishingly small subset of men- virulently misogynistic male gamers.


----------



## Cadfan

FATAL is aimed at men, its just terrible.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Bumbles said:


> The problem is that this implication may be the log in your own eye, not the mote in say, Gary's, or others who don't care that the drow are a matriarchy or even dare I say it...black-skinned!
> 
> Yes, there are folks who clamor that the drow are an example of racism too.
> 
> Been that way for a while.



There's a reason for it.

You don't have to argue that the drow having black skin, female rulers, and oppressed men means that Gary (or anyone else who contributed to the drow) intended to say that women being in charge or having black skin is evil.

However, why do the drow have black skin? Because "black" is associated with "evil" in the Western culture to which Gary (and the others) belonged. It was a not-uncommon theory for a very long time that black people were "cursed" with dark skin because of the sins of their ancestor or a flaw in their nature.

It's not even that "black = evil" is necessarily a bad idea in itself; it's just symbolism and has no inherent moral weight. However, in our society the fact that "dark = evil" has been used as a weapon against people with dark skin, so when you present an entire race of elves who are different from regular elves because they are a) evil and b) dark-skinned, you *absolutely* summon up the very same associations.

Likewise, it's not the idea of an evil matriarchy that oppresses its male citizens that's problematic, it's the idea that the *only* matriarchy around is evil and oppresses its menfolk that is the problem. Gary, I'm sure, wasn't saying outright that any society ruled by women is naturally going to be evil and oppressive of men, but the *suggestion*, as unintentional as it may have been, is unfortunate: that societies ruled by men may be good or evil as their cultures dictate, but it seems like there's only one society ruled by women and it's full of evil sadists!

Nobody reasonable accuses Gary or anyone who wrote about the drow of being anti-black, anti-woman jerkbags. We can still recognise the problems in the drow race without suggesting it was intentional.


----------



## S'mon

mhacdebhandia said:


> However, in our society the fact that "dark = evil" has been used as a weapon against people with dark skin




I have seen this claimed, but I have never encountered it, even in historical documents.  It seems to me to be a false meme.  Albinos = evil, OTOH...


----------



## mhacdebhandia

S'mon said:


> I have seen this claimed, but I have never encountered it, even in historical documents.  It seems to me to be a false meme.  Albinos = evil, OTOH...



Curse of Ham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Anyway, I just wanted to add to my post:

I don't think the evil drow being black or matriarchal is the result of any kind of agenda on the part of Gary or other creators. I think it's far more likely to have been an unconscious product of their cultural context - a context which is full of problems.


----------



## S'mon

mhacdebhandia said:


> Curse of Ham - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia




Yeah, I've seen the _claim_, what I have not seen is anyone, ever, within Western civilisation* actually saying "black skin tone indicates evil".  Not even the Nazis.

*Hindu mythology may be different.  Although again I've seen local Islamic literature claiming this (attempting to convert dark-skinned Hindus to Islam) but I've not seen it in any actual source material.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

S'mon said:


> I have seen this claimed, but I have never encountered it, even in historical documents.  It seems to me to be a false meme.




Well, Dark = Evil is a popular western meme- villains wear black hats, sometimes even black clothing.  Evil magic- Black Magic, aka "The Dark arts."  Black Knight, "black rage", Black Death, Black Dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dog_(ghost)) ...the list goes on.

In early American literature, you find references to the "dark forests" in which the feared unknown- or even known, if they were on bad terms with the local Native Americans- lurked for the unwary.  And, of course, there was "deepest, darkest Africa..."

When applied to race, its not so cut & dried, though.

In the East, a light skin was often associated with aristocracy, whereas those of dark skin were _obviously_ field hands & laborers.  IOW, it wasn't about race, it was about social status.

In the West, the guys who wrote the histories were usually the Caucasians, who, once they ventured outside of Europe and Asia, kept conquering societies that were composed of darker skinned individuals.  Over time, some of them started equating the accident of their relatively advanced society with innate superiority.

Dark wasn't so much a descriptor of evil so much as a marker of inferiority.

(Nice catch on the Curse of Ham, BTW.)

But...


> ...what I have not seen is anyone, ever, within Western civilisation* actually saying "black skin tone indicates evil".




The Nazis missed this one, but the KKK and some other American white supremacists didn't.  Most of them don't go beyond calling us inferior, but some do, with rhetoric claiming that we are so inherently flawed that any of us could commit the most heinous of crime at any time, that we are the sole source of societal ills in this country.  _Those _guys believe in the death penalty for minorities in the US, with them being Judge, jury and executioner- no trial necessary.



> Albinos = evil,




No joke- there have been so many negative depictions of albinos in American movies over the past 20 years, that there is actually an organization that protests them when they pop up.


----------



## S'mon

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, Dark = Evil is a popular western meme- villains wear black hats, sometimes even black clothing.  Evil magic- Black Magic, aka "The Dark arts."  Black rage, Black Death, Black Dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dog_(ghost))...the list goes on.
> 
> In early American literature, you find references to the "dark forests" in which the feared unknown- or even known, if they were on bad terms with the local Native Americans- lurked for the unwary.  And, of course, there was "deepest, darkest Africa..."
> 
> When applied to race, its not so cut & dried, though.
> 
> (snip)
> 
> In the West, the guys who wrote the histories were usually the Caucasians, who, once they ventured outside of Europe and Asia, kept conquering societies that were composed of darker skinned individuals.  Over time, some of them started equating the accident of their relatively advanced society with innate superiority.
> 
> Dark wasn't so much a descriptor of evil so much as a marker of inferiority.




Yes, this tallies with my experience.  The meme in Western culture is dark skin = inferior, not dark skin = evil.


----------



## S'mon

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No joke- there have been so many negative depictions of albinos in American movies over the past 20 years, that there is actually an organization that protests them when they pop up.




Of course Gygax had both the black skinned evil Drow and the 'near albinoid' evil Suel.  An equal-opportunity colour-coder.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

S'mon said:


> Yes, this tallies with my experience.  The meme in Western culture is dark skin = inferior, not dark skin = evil.




Don't miss my stealth edit of that post, though...  It contains the major exception.


----------



## Bumbles

mhacdebhandia said:


> There's a reason for it.




Doesn't make the reason a good one.  Seriously, I'm aware of the reasons, I just don't agree that they're valid.

Perception can be in the eye of the beholder, and there's only so much that the conceiver can do about it.  If you really want to look for other examples of dark-skinned creatures that aren't evil...you can!  If you want to look for examples of light-skinned creatures that are evil...you can!  If you want to look for examples of matriarchies/gynarchies that aren't evil...you can!

Or create some yourself if that's what you desire.

Trying to make something of the drow being a dark-skinned evil matriarchy is a waste of time IMHO though.  It just increases the chance for divisiveness.   



> However, why do the drow have black skin?




You'd have to ask whoever created them.  It may be for the reason you suggested, or it may be for another reason entirely.

For example, contrasting with the surface elves, or high-lighting their underground stealthy nature.  I don't pretend to know though.


----------



## Ariosto

The Drow originally were not merely dark skinned in a human way, but _literally_ black, per Snorri Sturluson's description of the "black elves" (apparently _dwarfs_, actually, although their dwelling is called Svartálfaheim) as "darker than pitch".

There was a later (2E?) product with a cover depicting female Drow in a very obviously "blaxploitation" style -- even (if memory serves) to the point of lightening their skin color.

The association of darkness with danger or evil has to do with human dependence on vision and consequent vulnerability in the absence of light (as for instance at night or underground). It is not peculiar to pale-skinned people!

Likewise, although (again, _literal_) whiteness can connote purity, it can also suggest death by association with pale bones. See the stormtroopers in _Star Wars_ for an excellent example -- and the common use in Asia of white for mourning or funereal garb.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

S'mon said:


> Of course Gygax had both the black skinned evil Drow and the 'near albinoid' evil Suel.  An equal-opportunity colour-coder.




The Drow were the first critters that made me realize that I didn't like iron-clad alignments for non-supernatural creatures.  IOW, I couldn't see all Drow as CE- and shortly after their appearance, made my first NG Drow (a Rgr/Druid/MU)- and went from that to include other races...but things like Devils and Devas, OTOH, had virtually unchangeable alignments.  Their alignment was as much a part of themselves as their eyes and hands.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Ariosto said:


> Likewise, although (again, _literal_) whiteness can connote purity, it can also suggest death by association with pale bones. See the stormtroopers in _Star Wars_ for an excellent example -- and the common use in Asia of white for mourning or funereal garb.




And the dangerous, carnivorous Lankhmar Ghouls, whose skin was perfectly translucent, exposing their bones for all to see.


----------



## Bumbles

mhacdebhandia said:


> I think it's far more likely to have been an unconscious product of their cultural context - a context which is full of problems.




There is no cultural context that cannot be said to be full of problems.  You might as well be objecting to the pseudo-medieval focus of the game for all the good that argument does you.


----------



## Bumbles

Dannyalcatraz said:


> And the dangerous, carnivorous Lankhmar Ghouls, whose skin was perfectly translucent, exposing their bones for all to see.




A clear sign of pro-vegetarian prejudice on the part of Leiber!  Either that or anti-cannibalism!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Wasn't this thread about sexism in D&D and on EN World? I would recommend sticking to that topic, honestly.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Bumbles said:


> There is no cultural context that cannot be said to be full of problems.  You might as well be objecting to the pseudo-medieval focus of the game for all the good that argument does you.



Well, I do, actually. In my games, there's absolutely no assumption that the world resembles medieval Europe in anything more than a superficial and localised fashion. In my current game, using the Scales of War adventure path, the PCs may carry crossbows and longswords, but the feel of the world - at least the target I'm aiming to hit, even if I don't quite make it - is much more "imperial China in one of its least unified periods" or "declining imperial Rome". Magistrates held over from the imperial bureaucracy instead of a mayor or town council, for instance.

Besides this, while all cultural contexts are problematic, we can still attempt to avoid re-enacting the same problematic assumptions in our games without purpose. If I include sexism or racism or authoritarianism in my games, you can be sure I'll have tried as hard as I can to make it have a purpose - a purpose that my players will at least not be irritated by, if not actively appreciate.


----------



## S'mon

mhacdebhandia said:


> Besides this, while all cultural contexts are problematic, we can still attempt to avoid re-enacting the same problematic assumptions in our games without purpose. If I include sexism or racism or authoritarianism in my games, you can be sure I'll have tried as hard as I can to make it have a purpose - a purpose that my players will at least not be irritated by, if not actively appreciate.




It's generally good not to annoy your players.  But I've had a lot of players who'd be annoyed by your approach to world-building; different strokes etc.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Sure. I am not in the least bit motivated by the desire for authenticity or verisimilitude in worldbuilding for its own sake; what I care about is whether or not a world or a story is interesting, not whether it is what would have most likely happened (a question impossible to answer in any case).

I save verisimilitude for characters and their behaviour in play.


----------



## shilsen

Lwaxy said:


> Maybe the "don't give a damn" people went to the negative damn-giving scale and didn't even read this thread




That's what I presume happened in at least a few cases, if not most.



			
				Bumbles said:
			
		

> ...stigmata...






Hussar said:


> Off topic - sorry, totally a personal pet peeve here.  Feel free to ignore.  Unless you're bleeding from your hands and feet, the word you were looking for was stigma.






Bumbles said:


> I will then.
> 
> Me, I prefer to use stigma for parts of flowers.




And here I thought you were the guy asking for precise use of language !



Ycore Rixle said:


> We definitely are not using "sexism" in exactly the same way. I went over that in my post on p.3, I think it is.
> 
> I think that we can agree on this: If "sexism" means a) supposing one sex superior to the other, or b) judging an individual based on his membership in a collective rather than his own actions, then it is not welcome in D&D.




That we agree on. Much of what I'm focusing on here is a third form of sexism, i.e. privileging the experience/taste/desire of one sex and especially treating that sex as the default.  



> However, I don't think that any of that sort of sexism is present to _any_ significance in D&D, on ENWorld, or anywhere else that you indicted in your original post.




Fair enough. It's clear we differ on this point. I think the third type of sexism I mentioned above tends to happen a good deal in both D&D and on ENWorld, where the implicit (often unexamined) assumption is that the audience is male. That happens, of course, at least partly because men do make up the much larger part of the D&D market, but I don't think that's a justifiable reason.



> But again, there is no significant instance of that in D&D, or on ENWorld. This is a notably open, understanding, kind community. I'm thinking of Angelsboi and others. ENWorld has changed a fair amount over the last nine+ years, but it's been a great place all the way. I'm sorry, but I felt I had to defend it when I saw your original post calling it out for something that it does not do to any significant degree.




I'm guessing more than a few people posted at first in order to defend ENWorld. Personally, I think ENWorld is a great place, hence the inordinate amounts of time I've spent and do spend here. I love the community. But thinking it's a great place doesn't mean I don't think it could do better. Thinking that it is usually open, understanding and kind doesn't mean I think it is never implicitly exclusionary. Both can and do coexist in many groups and communities outside ENWorld, so I'm not surprised that I see it here too. And, of course, some people don't.



> What I object to is your implication that D&D, RPGs in general, and ENWorld are somehow doing a bad thing by engaging in "behavior, conditions, and attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex."
> ...




Fair enough. Again, I differ. Even leaving aside our differences on the biological bases of such stereotypes, I seriously don't see how fostering stereotypes can be anything but detrimental, esp. when these stereotypes are used in an exclusionary fashion. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, I have to agree that F.A.T.A.L. is a game targeted towards men.  Its so misogynistic that a woman who enjoys the game should probably be examined for some kind of pathology.




Agreed, except I'd say that _anyone_ who enjoys the game should probably be examined for some kind of pathology. 



> And I can agree that it is so far skewed in that regards that you could make a case for it being the RPG most aimed at men.
> 
> However, just because it is "the RPG _most_ aimed at men" doesn't mean its  "the RPG aimed at _most_ men."  In fact, I'd argue that it is the aimed at a vanishingly small subset of men- virulently misogynistic male gamers.




What he said.



mhacdebhandia said:


> Likewise, it's not the idea of an evil matriarchy that oppresses its male citizens that's problematic, it's the idea that the *only* matriarchy around is evil and oppresses its menfolk that is the problem. Gary, I'm sure, wasn't saying outright that any society ruled by women is naturally going to be evil and oppressive of men, but the *suggestion*, as unintentional as it may have been, is unfortunate: that societies ruled by men may be good or evil as their cultures dictate, but it seems like there's only one society ruled by women and it's full of evil sadists!
> 
> Nobody reasonable accuses Gary or anyone who wrote about the drow of being anti-black, anti-woman jerkbags. We can still recognise the problems in the drow race without suggesting it was intentional.




Agreed. With a lot of the stuff which I'm pointing to, I think at least part of the reason (though there are many) that people don't see them as problematic is because they're not intended to be sexist. But intent goes only thus far. If the vast majority of societies in D&D are patriarchal, that doesn't mean the people creating them intentionally are trying to make a point (or even thinking) that men should be in charge. But it does show, to me, that patriarchy is what is "normal", to them. And that I have a problem with, since it's both exclusionary and, well, boring and uncreative. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Dark wasn't so much a descriptor of evil so much as a marker of inferiority.






S'mon said:


> Yes, this tallies with my experience.  The meme in Western culture is dark skin = inferior, not dark skin = evil.




Agreed, but that is still a very problematic meme, in my opinion. To tie it back to the subject of this thread, a meme where women are evil would be a problem. But a meme where women are inferior would also be a problem, I think. As would the one that women are the other, separate in some way from the norm, which is one I do see in the D&D community. 



Bumbles said:


> There is no cultural context that cannot be said to be full of problems.




Right. So why does that mean we can't notice, comment on and critique the problems? I'm with mhacdebhandia (see the last bit quoted in this post) here.



> You might as well be objecting to the pseudo-medieval focus of the game for all the good that argument does you.




Been there done that already, including in this thread  



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Wasn't this thread about sexism in D&D and on EN World? I would recommend sticking to that topic, honestly.




Thanks for the attempt, Mustrum, but when do threads on ENWorld stay tightly focused, esp. over a long stretch? Anyway, let's see if this long response ties things a little back to the original subject.



mhacdebhandia said:


> Well, I do, actually. In my games, there's absolutely no assumption that the world resembles medieval Europe in anything more than a superficial and localised fashion. In my current game, using the Scales of War adventure path, the PCs may carry crossbows and longswords, but the feel of the world - at least the target I'm aiming to hit, even if I don't quite make it - is much more "imperial China in one of its least unified periods" or "declining imperial Rome". Magistrates held over from the imperial bureaucracy instead of a mayor or town council, for instance.




Interesting. I tend to ignore or actively avoid the pseudo-medieval European vibe in D&D too, at least in part because (as I think I've mentioned before) I find it kinda ludicrous. Introducing the elements of D&D into a world and trying to make it seem like it could map inexorably to one historical period in one geographical area in our world seems really strange to me. And just very unimaginative. I'd have to say that a lot of the issues with sexism that I'm referencing also have less to do with people trying to actually be sexist and more with laziness and not seeing that there's a lot out there beyond their own experiences and history.



> Besides this, while all cultural contexts are problematic, we can still attempt to avoid re-enacting the same problematic assumptions in our games without purpose.




Agreed.


----------



## SteveC

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, I have to agree that F.A.T.A.L. is a game targeted towards men.  Its so misogynistic that a woman who enjoys the game should probably be examined for some kind of pathology.
> 
> And I can agree that it is so far skewed in that regards that you could make a case for it being the RPG most aimed at men.
> 
> However, just because it is "the RPG _most_ aimed at men" doesn't mean its  "the RPG aimed at _most_ men."  In fact, I'd argue that it is the aimed at a vanishingly small subset of men- virulently misogynistic male gamers.



I really have to disagree with this assertion: FATAL is designed for a caricature that doesn't really exist except for perhaps in some very disturbed adolescent boys. There's a real serious problem when it gets bantered about as the ultimate example of a game designed for men.

And that's the real problem with this discussion: D&D is a game designed almost entirely by and for men. That doesn't mean it's a sexist game at all, because there's a planear gulf of distance between something that's designed from the male perspective and something that's sexist. That's what is missed here: male perspective != sexist. It's easiest to see this if you reverse it and ask if a game designed by women for a female audience would automatically be sexist.

D&D, especially after WotC purchased it, has gone out of it's way to not be sexist, down to choices made for characters and language. It also still remains a game that's going to appeal to a primarily male audience. Why? Because, at it's core, the heroic model of "killing things and taking their stuff" is something that appeals more to men than women. That doesn't mean that women can't or don't enjoy the hobby or killing and looting (far from it) of course.


----------



## Set

S'mon said:


> Yeah, I've seen the _claim_, what I have not seen is anyone, ever, within Western civilisation* actually saying "black skin tone indicates evil". Not even the Nazis.




You don't have to go nearly that far.  Check out Brigham Young, whose views about black skin being the mark of Cain, a sign of punishment for past transgressions and a sign of moral taint are fairly well established, and were shared by a fairly large and influential group.  Any further discussion on that particular group would probably violate the board's policy, 'though...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

SteveC said:


> I really have to disagree with this assertion: FATAL is designed for a caricature that doesn't really exist except for perhaps in some very disturbed adolescent boys. There's a real serious problem when it gets bantered about as the ultimate example of a game designed for men..




I'm afraid I have to disabuse you of this.  The caricature exists.

If you do a search for "F.A.T.A.L. + rpgnet + rebuttal," you'd find a point-by-point rebuttal that makes it incredibly clear that the game's creator is 1) not an adolescent boy, 2) is an adult male, and 3) quite sincere in his assertion that he has created the ultimate RPG.

It is, in a sense, the "ultimate" game for men insofar as it _ clearly_ isn't designed to appeal to females of any age.  It is _equally clear_ that it is a game designed for men- again, a small subset of them- in much the same way as RaHoWa RPG is a game designed for (a subset of) white people* ( Worst RPGs ever - RPGnetWiki ).  As for its appeal to adolescent boys...well, IMHO, there is too much misogyny in its rules to appeal to any boy who isn't well on his way to being a very sick adult male.

*For those who don't know, RaHoWa RPG is a game in which the object is to hunt down and kill minorities-  RaHoWa stands for "Racial Holy War."


----------



## Bumbles

shilsen said:


> And here I thought you were the guy asking for precise use of language !




Not quite.   Besides, different people often have different ideas about what is hitting on the target.  Sad but true.  More important than precision is recognition of the possibility of some mutual misunderstanding, as two or more people can use the same words, but mean different things.

I don't think that was quite the problem with the disagreement over the word stigmata though.  Me, I'll stick with what I said, I see stigma, I think of flowers.



> Right. So why does that mean we can't notice, comment on and critique the problems? I'm with mhacdebhandia (see the last bit quoted in this post) here.




What it means is that you should recognize that particular issue.  Putting that in your mind may save you a lot of trouble when you make your critiques of the problems as you perceive them, since it can prevent you from taking a course of action that's more divisive and less likely to resolve any of your issues.



> Interesting. I tend to ignore or actively avoid the pseudo-medieval European vibe in D&D too, at least in part because (as I think I've mentioned before) I find it kinda ludicrous. Introducing the elements of D&D into a world and trying to make it seem like it could map inexorably to one historical period in one geographical area in our world seems really strange to me. And just very unimaginative.




And while this isn't a particularly a bad thing, if you haven't seen some of the protests, then you might not understand where I'm coming from on it.

Me, I've done a few things that are probably similar to what you've done.  And I know Eberron is loved by many for the things it has done which are in this vein. 

Writing a protest on GH or FR though, would not be as  well received though.



mhacdebhandia said:


> Well, I do, actually. In my games, there's absolutely no assumption that the world resembles medieval Europe in anything more than a superficial and localised fashion. In my current game, using the Scales of War adventure path, the PCs may carry crossbows and longswords, but the feel of the world - at least the target I'm aiming to hit, even if I don't quite make it - is much more "imperial China in one of its least unified periods" or "declining imperial Rome". Magistrates held over from the imperial bureaucracy instead of a mayor or town council, for instance.




Ahem, there is a difference between exploring other historical areas to base your role-playing in, and objecting to one particular version.   So you are doing a pseudo-imperial China/Rome game...this is not the same as declaiming that D&D's default set-up is terribad.

I have no objection to the former, I even encourage it, it's the latter that I find tends to be tiresome.

I'd much rather you go about designing the setting you find interesting instead.



> Besides this, while all cultural contexts are problematic, we can still attempt to avoid re-enacting the same problematic assumptions in our games without purpose. If I include sexism or racism or authoritarianism in my games, you can be sure I'll have tried as hard as I can to make it have a purpose - a purpose that my players will at least not be irritated by, if not actively appreciate.




Exactly what I've been saying.   Avoiding things is one thing.  I avoid questions about consuming alcohol in games myself.  And gender discrimination too for that matter.

Oh, and before I forget, here's a request, it's a bit involved, and you'll want to do it before you read too far:

Imagine a fighter.  Fix the image in your head.  Write down a description if you want.  If you feel particularly up to the task, you can make a drawing.

Now do the same for a mage, a cleric and a thief.

Now really stop and do that.  

Or decide "eh, I'm not going to do that" 

Last chance to stop.

Ok, so you may have figured out from the context of the thread what I was asking you to do, which was to share your own conceptions, if unconsciously.   If you want to involve your gaming group, and they don't know about this thread, or you can spring it on them, then you might try to use them as a sample.

Just a thought based on recalling an experiment from high school.   Everybody was asked to draw a scientist.  Most drew men in lab coats.  I doubt anybody would guess what I drew.


----------



## Wayside

Dannyalcatraz said:


> If you do a search for "F.A.T.A.L. + rpgnet + rebuttal," you'd find a point-by-point rebuttal that makes it incredibly clear that the game's creator is 1) not an adolescent boy, 2) is an adult male, and 3) quite sincere in his assertion that he has created the ultimate RPG.



Maybe. But it's also possible that both the game and the rebuttal were for the lulz and you're the victim of some epic trolling.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

"Stigmata" is the plural of "stigma."  "Stigmata" does carry a religious connotation, so "stigmas" is usually used as the plural of "stigma" when that religious connotation isn't desired.

While it's true that "stigma" is part of the anatomy of flowers (and other plants, and even animals), it is a far less common usage that using it to mean "mark of shame."

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.


Jeff

P.S. Chicks rule.


----------



## mhacdebhandia

Bumbles said:


> So you are doing a pseudo-imperial China/Rome game...this is not the same as declaiming that D&D's default set-up is terribad.



True. I have, however, seen quite a bit of sloppy argumentation from people that relies on the idea that "_D&D_ is like medieval Europe" to defend sexism and other silliness - and criticising "_D&D_ is like medieval Europe" in *that* context is not meant to be an attack on people who like games set in worlds much like medieval Europe, but instead is aimed at pointing out that the world described by the rules and features of _D&D_ would look *nothing* like medieval Europe, so defending anything about _D&D_ on the grounds of similarity to medieval Europe is literally ridiculous: it makes me laugh.



Bumbles said:


> Ok, so you may have figured out from the context of the thread what I was asking you to do, which was to share your own conceptions, if unconsciously.



I might think first of a white human man in heavy armour when you tell me "think of a _D&D_ fighter", but just because I am a product of my race, class, age, and gender doesn't mean that I can't go "hmm, you know, there's no reason for 'a _D&D_ fighter' to be human, male, or white".

Everyone is a product of their social environment. That doesn't mean that we can't recognise when our responses and expectations are coloured unnecessarily.

Again, maybe I do think of a white guy in a lab coat when you tell me "think of a scientist", but the only two working postgraduate scientists I know personally are both white women who don't wear lab coats: one is a psychologist studying human perception, the other is a biochemist studying proteins. That doesn't mean that I should assume the "default" scientist is a white woman, either!

In some ways I think it argues against the idea of a "typical X" at all. No matter what race, gender, or any other grouping you select as your "typical X", their race, gender, or other markers will not be representative of all Xs.

(Statistical choices aren't much help, either. Who ends up being X in life isn't even remotely free of influence from the very ideas that make a typical scientist in most people's minds "a white guy in a lab coat" - so even if you argue that the statistically typical scientist is a white guy, it's still problematic to say that means the "best" representation of a typical scientist is a white guy.)


----------



## Bumbles

mhacdebhandia said:


> True. I have, however, seen quite a bit of sloppy argumentation from people that relies on the idea that "_D&D_ is like medieval Europe" to defend sexism and other silliness - and criticising "_D&D_ is like medieval Europe" in *that* context is not meant to be an attack on people who like games set in worlds much like medieval Europe, but instead is aimed at pointing out that the world described by the rules and features of _D&D_ would look *nothing* like medieval Europe, so defending anything about _D&D_ on the grounds of similarity to medieval Europe is literally ridiculous: it makes me laugh.




Well, laugh all you want, but if you don't recognize the pseudo-medieval nature of the game, that's your lookout.  I don't pretend it's logical, but then it's not meant to be.  It's just a combination of preferences arising out of a variety of sources, with no real rhyme or reason behind them.  Which is why I find the long diatribes railing against that state to be annoying rather than persuasive.

None of this is directly related to sexism as it were, I tend not to use that particular justification for it since I go by the why be annoying rule when it comes to gender discrimination in game.  I also don't worry about class, hair-color or handedness.  Or flea infestations, horse shoes coming off and that sort of thing.  Unless it's a story idea, and I want the PC's to have a reason to find a blacksmith. 



> I might think first of a white human man in heavy armour when you tell me "think of a _D&D_ fighter", but just because I am a product of my race, class, age, and gender doesn't mean that I can't go "hmm, you know, there's no reason for 'a _D&D_ fighter' to be human, male, or white".




Indeed you can.  But that's something you have to ask yourself.  It's primarily meant your own personal introspection, where it can be most helpful.  In another sense, it's like the "I'm a PC commercials" featuring a wide variety of usages.

Tried it on your gaming groups yet?  Or any of the other classes?   Or maybe adding in a race as a combo?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Wayside said:


> Maybe. But it's also possible that both the game and the rebuttal were for the lulz and you're the victim of some epic trolling.




It is possible, but unlikely.

F.A.T.A.L. had an _official_ review at RPGnet that was taken down.  Hoaxes don't get made into 900 page rpgs with at least 2 print runs - the second of which changes the acronym to be more palatable.  It would be a sophisticated hoax indeed to have spawned as many 1st person reviews as it did.

At stardestroyer.net, you can find a thread devoted to its awfulness, and one poster was even kind enough to provide a link that, if you click it, you'll be able to download the 1000+ page beta version of the game.

(Due to...salty...language, I did not actually link to the thread.)


----------



## kolikeos

All this talk about sexism, and then I notice the art at the top of every ENworld page (where it says "forums" "wiki" "downloads" etc.). It seems to me that whoever made that was under the assumption that the default characters are always male while females are only for "sexy" decoration (the only female is the naked demon).
I know I’m just restating what others have already said, but did anyone mention this specific example of sexism on ENworld? If so then please excuse this repetition.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Several ads that pop up on ENWorld feature "banner babes."


----------



## Rel

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Several ads that pop up on ENWorld feature "banner babes."




Yeah?

Maybe I should turn those back on...


----------



## Mournblade94

mhacdebhandia said:


> True. I have, however, seen quite a bit of sloppy argumentation from people that relies on the idea that "_D&D_ is like medieval Europe" to defend sexism and other silliness - and criticising "_D&D_ is like medieval Europe" in *that* context is not meant to be an attack on people who like games set in worlds much like medieval Europe, but instead is aimed at pointing out that the world described by the rules and features of _D&D_ would look *nothing* like medieval Europe, so defending anything about _D&D_ on the grounds of similarity to medieval Europe is literally ridiculous: it makes me laugh.




Medieval women were not discriminated against nearly to the extent that Victorian women were.  Medieval women were actually quite well empowered, much more so than the false assumptions that people make about the middle ages.

One source I can think of off the top of my head is Francis Gies _Life of Medieval Women.  _Please note this title may be wrong, but the author is correct.

So defending sexism as being "the pseudo medieval environment" is not a proper defense in any way.

I play D&D with lots of women, but whether or not there was sexism in D&D or my adventures I have no idea.  No one has ever complained, but it is certainly not anything I am concerned about.  If its there its there.

If its not all the better.


----------



## MichaelK

My gaming group doesn't have any female players in it at the moment, (though I am trying to recruit my friend's girlfriend into the hobby since I think she'd love it) but I've gamed with plenty of women in the past and they've never had any troubles with the game.

Their reaction to the more 'chainmail bikini' artwork (which is significantly reduced these days but I still have a ton of older books) varied. About half of them just laughed, finding them ridiculous. The other half or so went "ooh, can I play someone like her, she looks awesome". None of them seemed offended at all. You never can predict how people will react to things.

In terms of the game system there's no mechanical difference whatsoever (with the exception of stupid classes like beloved of valarian and swanmay, which I houserule to be unrestricted by gender, not that anyone's ever wanted to play one). Generally when I generate an NPC unless I have a specific reason they need to be one gender then I randomly generate it with a 50/50 chance of either after I've made the stats.

Many of the supernatural creatures, (angels/demons/gods/dragons/slaad/etc) don't necessarily need to have a gender. I assume in my settings that they are androgynous and only assume a gender when they wish to procreate or if they're trying to seduce or impersonate someone.  

The gods grant miracles to men and women equally, sorcery and psionics are as likely to manifest in either gender and anyone can swing swords the size of surfboards around. I just don't think sexism feels natural to me in a fantasy world.

It's not really that I'm trying to avoid sexism in my game, though I'm happy that's the result. It's just that I want my game to be pure awesome and fun, those things that are sexist usually aren't either of those so they fall by the wayside.


----------



## julia1737

*Dwarven women do NOT have beards!*

Dwarven women do NOT have beards!

And D&D was designed by guys for guys... and as a result... often has a very "Slavegirls or Gor" feel to it.   Football -- not designed for girls to play either.   However... D&D is a very maliable setting with rules which even state that you should modify them to suit your own world.   For that reason every world you play in has a different feel and level of sexism or relationship to mideval europe.  Most of the tone or setting is set by your DM. 

And that's a beautiful thing!

But when you're a girl who comes into a hostile party made up of nerdy teen-aged boys who have trouble w/ socialization and fear girls to begin with... expect to be excluded and then have your character raped... or have the dm roll to see if you are having your period.    And then for them to be SHOCKED when you protest.  But...  it's a learning opportunity!  Women learn that men are not women like themselves but with short hair... and men learn that women are complicated and sensitive creatures and to fear and rue the day they try that stuff.   

As bad as it is... I actually think the US is unbelivably PC compared to most of the world.   Forget D&D ... their are lots of places on this earth where you get acid thrown on you as a girl for trying to go to school, have to wear purda, where female mutilation is a reality, and you can be forced to marry someone.   This is not to say that things are honky-dory.. and that the advancement women have won are not precarious at best.  

I think that there are not many arenas in which younger men and women really have the chance to share so much back and forth on very core issues... and I think the result is often quite eye-opening for both sexes.

It definetly makes the game richer and more complex.  But girls... be prepared to be shocked and appauled ... you haven't come such a long way there yet baby!


----------



## shilsen

julia1737 said:


> Dwarven women do NOT have beards!




Note to self: Make sure PCs interact with more dwarven women soon.



> As bad as it is... I actually think the US is unbelivably PC compared to most of the world.   Forget D&D ... their are lots of places on this earth where you get acid thrown on you as a girl for trying to go to school, have to wear purda, where female mutilation is a reality, and you can be forced to marry someone.   This is not to say that things are honky-dory.. and that the advancement women have won are not precarious at best.




On this note, something I've been thinking about a lot recently is the way that sexism in the US works. The fact that there is a (in my opinion, thin) veneer of gender equality makes it easy for people here to say that there is little or no sexism, just like some people claim (ludicrously, IMNSHO) that racism isn't a problem in the US any more. But in other parts of the world, where the existence of sexism is so evident that it can't be ignored, people are forced to deal with it more consistently and, often, more intelligently. I'm in India right now, which has far more sexism than the US does. But as a result of the obvious existence of sexism, it also has some areas where it deals more consistently and better with sexism than the US. Hell, India's had a female Prime Minister and President, currently is enacting laws for reservation of seats in Parliament for women, does better than the US when it comes to portrayal/treatment of body images for women, has better laws against domestic abuse for women than the US, etc. And so on. The USA is much better for women in many areas than some other parts of the world, but some of those very parts ironically do better than the USA in certain areas. 

Anyhow, the reason I popped back into this thread was to post about a couple of things which are fairly representative of the sort of easily-accepted sexism which I claimed in my original post to see on ENWorld as well as in gaming and related activities.

kolikeos mentioned some of the banner art above, but what about the idiotic Evony ads which pop up all the time here? There's little which needs to be said about it, I think, so I'll leave it to this blog-post made by Jeff Atwood here:

How Not to Advertise on the Internet

And what especially got me thinking about posting on this thread again is Electronic Arts' new contest for Comic-Con goers. Again, there's not that much which needs to be said about it, but for your edification:

Here's the ad

And here are a couple of comments on it, from:

Shakesville

and Ars Technica

Treating women like meat and men like neanderthals, 2009. Ah, 'tis a brave and progressive new world we live in.


----------



## resistor

Yeah, those Evony ads keep showing up on both ENWorld and various tech sites I read.  It's honestly rather irritating.  I want to read some tech news in peace, not have all my coworkers stare at me because there's a giant banner ad of breasts on the site.

Also, the EA contest thing flabbergasts me.  I simply can't imagine how someone, somewhere, ever thought that was a good idea.  And someone else approved it.

Ridiculous.


----------



## Vegepygmy

shilsen said:


> I'm in India right now, which...has better laws against domestic abuse for women than the US, etc.



Please send me a private message elaborating on this point, Shilsen.  I'm a criminal prosecutor in an area of California with a very large Indian population, and this contradicts everything I've been led to understand.  I'm sincerely interested in hearing your perspective.


----------



## shilsen

Vegepygmy said:


> Please send me a private message elaborating on this point, Shilsen.  I'm a criminal prosecutor in an area of California with a very large Indian population, and this contradicts everything I've been led to understand.  I'm sincerely interested in hearing your perspective.



PM sent.


----------



## kibbitz

... okay, so I've prepared an adventure. All the NPCs of note are male. Is this being sexist?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

shilsen said:


> On this note, something I've been thinking about a lot recently is the way that sexism in the US works. The fact that there is a (in my opinion, thin) veneer of gender equality makes it easy for people here to say that there is little or no sexism, just like some people claim (ludicrously, IMNSHO) that racism isn't a problem in the US any more. But in other parts of the world, where the existence of sexism is so evident that it can't be ignored, people are forced to deal with it more consistently and, often, more intelligently. I'm in India right now, which has far more sexism than the US does. But as a result of the obvious existence of sexism, it also has some areas where it deals more consistently and better with sexism than the US. Hell, India's had a female Prime Minister and President, currently is enacting laws for reservation of seats in Parliament for women, does better than the US when it comes to portrayal/treatment of body images for women, has better laws against domestic abuse for women than the US, etc. And so on. The USA is much better for women in many areas than some other parts of the world, but some of those very parts ironically do better than the USA in certain areas.




I'm not privy to the PM you sent my Californian colleague, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Indian laws you say exist actually do.

The key question, of course, is how good is the _enforcement_ of those laws?

IME, many countries have laws equivalent or superior to those in the US, but fail to enforce them as diligently or fairly.  If you think US law on copyright infringement is harsh, for instance, you should check out the laws in places like China and Russia...theirs are roughly equivalent.  However, both countries are notorious hotbeds for copyright infringement because of a lack of enforcement, at least of the rights of non-natives.

I live in the Dallas/FW Metroplex, in an area with a large and growing Indian population.  Almost every month, I see Indian women treated with a level of disrespect by their husbands, brothers, uncles and even their _young _male children that is at least dismissive and disrespectful, and sometimes borders on abusive.  Some of my relatives who work in service/sales industries see it even more.

And that is in public in mixed company.  I don't wonder how bad it is in private.

Are these people rogues who left India because that way of life is no longer socially or legally respected?  Perhaps.  I can't say, because my personal experiences are in no way statistically predictive.

But it is so common _here_ that I can't imagine that its much better over there.


----------



## pawsplay

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I live in the Dallas/FW Metroplex, in an area with a large and growing Indian population.  Almost every month, I see Indian women treated with a level of disrespect by their husbands, brothers, uncles and even their _young _male children that is at least dismissive and disrespectful, and sometimes borders on abusive.  Some of my relatives who work in service/sales industries see it even more.
> 
> And that is in public in mixed company.  I don't wonder how bad it is in private.




1. Human beings remember the exceptional. That is, incidents of poor conduct probably stick in the memory more than all the times it didn't happen.

2. People do inappropriate things all the time here. However, because it is somewhat socially sanctioned, people don't react as strongly. When you see someone do something disrespectful that is not culturally sanctioned, you are probably going to have a strong emotional reaction. In short, we are not as fair to people from outside our culture as to people within our culture when dishing out judgment.

3. It's a mistake to assume only the male is on his best behavior. In many male-dominated societies, it is common for women to be socially submissive, but to be more assertive in private. Specifically, from my admittedly limited experience, women in India have a lot of decision-making power when it comes to money and relationships, and although it may be the norm to defer to one's husband in public, heated discussions in private are not uncommon.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

pawsplay said:


> 3. It's a mistake to assume only the male is on his best behavior. In many male-dominated societies, it is common for women to be socially submissive, but to be more assertive in private. Specifically, from my admittedly limited experience, women in India have a lot of decision-making power when it comes to money and relationships, and although it may be the norm to defer to one's husband in public, heated discussions in private are not uncommon.




Agreed.  I've seen my mother respond to my father with "yes, dear," in public, then lay into his ass when they got home like there was no tomorrow.  Of course, she's in her 80s, so that might not be the norm anymore.  She also handled all the family business.  My dad always handed her his paycheck on payday, and she'd give him a few bucks spending money, almost like an allowance, heheh.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

shilsen said:


> kolikeos mentioned some of the banner art above, but what about the idiotic Evony ads which pop up all the time here? There's little which needs to be said about it, I think, so I'll leave it to this blog-post made by Jeff Atwood here:
> 
> How Not to Advertise on the Internet
> 
> And what especially got me thinking about posting on this thread again is Electronic Arts' new contest for Comic-Con goers. Again, there's not that much which needs to be said about it, but for your edification:
> 
> Here's the ad
> 
> And here are a couple of comments on it, from:
> 
> Shakesville
> 
> and Ars Technica
> 
> Treating women like meat and men like neanderthals, 2009. Ah, 'tis a brave and progressive new world we live in.




Thanks for bringing those up - it's kind of hard to say there is "no sexism in gaming" in the face of it.


----------



## shilsen

kibbitz said:


> ... okay, so I've prepared an adventure. All the NPCs of note are male. Is this being sexist?




Possibly, but it's hard to say without more context. For example, if all NPCs of note being male is common to the campaign world, then presumably that world (and/or the segment of it the PCs are involved with) is a patriarchal and sexist one. Conversely, if there's no in-game justification for it (and I think I've explained why I personally think explanations for in-game sexism aren't that great anyway) and you made the NPCs all male for no particular reason, and esp. if that's the norm in your adventures, then I think you're being a little sexist there. 

But, as I noted, without more information it's hard to say.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm not privy to the PM you sent my Californian colleague, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Indian laws you say exist actually do.
> 
> The key question, of course, is how good is the _enforcement_ of those laws?




True. Here's what I noted in the subsequent email I sent vegepygmy:

"Let me begin by clarifying that I said that India has some better laws against domestic abuse, not that they necessarily protect female victims of domestic violence better than in the US. The reason I'm making this caveat is because the existence of the law(s) doesn't mean that they'll be perfectly/effectively applied or that everyone will take recourse to them.

That said, the main laws I'm thinking of are section 498A in the Indian Penal Code (which deals with cruelty to a married woman) and, more importantly, the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which is focused on protection for women who are not only legally married but also those who are in live-in relationships, those who are sisters, mothers, widows, etc. An example of the way in which these laws vary from US ones, I believe, is that (according to the latter law) if a woman goes to a police station to lodge a complaint about domestic violence, the accused is immediately supposed to be arrested, placed in police custody and held there till the case comes to trial (usually in 1-2 weeks). The reason this element exists is so that a woman can immediately be placed out of harm's way (since the perpetrator(s) are behind bars) without being forced to flee their home, seek out a shelter, etc.

Now obviously this doesn't mean that domestic violence isn't as big an issue (and, I'd argue, bigger) in India than in the US. The number of people who avail of the above law is a tiny minority of the number being abused. There are also many allegations of the law being used in an abusive fashion, and it is gender-biased (since it's specifically geared to men abusing women). But its existence means that there IS a form of strong redress available for those willing/able to access it, and I've personally seen a lot of stories in the media where it has come into play. The position of women in India, in many ways is much worse than that of women in the US (especially among the poorer and less-educated members of society, of whom there are a LOT), but the point I was making in the thread is that there are certain specific areas where they (usually as individuals rather than groups) can be better off, a law like this being a case in point."



pawsplay said:


> 1. Human beings remember the exceptional. That is, incidents of poor conduct probably stick in the memory more than all the times it didn't happen.
> 
> 2. People do inappropriate things all the time here. However, because it is somewhat socially sanctioned, people don't react as strongly. When you see someone do something disrespectful that is not culturally sanctioned, you are probably going to have a strong emotional reaction. In short, we are not as fair to people from outside our culture as to people within our culture when dishing out judgment.
> 
> 3. It's a mistake to assume only the male is on his best behavior. In many male-dominated societies, it is common for women to be socially submissive, but to be more assertive in private. Specifically, from my admittedly limited experience, women in India have a lot of decision-making power when it comes to money and relationships, and although it may be the norm to defer to one's husband in public, heated discussions in private are not uncommon.




QFT.



Mathew_Freeman said:


> Thanks for bringing those up - it's kind of hard to say there is "no sexism in gaming" in the face of it.




Maybe I'm just a cynic, but some of the comments on this thread and things I've heard/read elsewhere lead me to believe that some people would argue there's no sexism in gaming, whatever evidence one provides.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Well, it seems as if the Internet Gnomes (or the mods?) have eaten my last post- I basically agreed with pawsplay, but also pointed out that the behavior I'm witnessing among young (less than 10yrs old) Indian males is not just directed towards relatives, but also to non-relatives, such as the all-female staff at my father's business.  Its the kind of behavior that would be corrected if the mothers in question had any authority over the male children at home...and is also entirely absent from their female siblings.

As for the law you cited, yes, that is nicely drafted.  But what matters just as much is how the law is actually used.  I can't say- as a Tx Attorney, I don't have quality access to stats on the Indian legal system- but human rights organizations routinely point out how nicely drafted laws are often ignored by those in power..._everywhere._


----------



## Tallifer

Without the traditional mediaeval roles for women in a campaign world some of the best epic literary tropes become illogical. The very unusualness of these women made their stories outstanding and compelling even for men:

Joan of Arc, Brienne of Tarth, Britomart

Witchcraft and witch hunts

Damsels in distress

Succubi, lamiae (in the mythic sense), vampiric seductresses, sirens

Aphrodite, Venus, Lilith, Isis

Amazons

The Virgin Queen, Jezebel, the Prophetess Deborah, Queen Esther


----------



## kolikeos

Tallifer said:


> Without the traditional mediaeval roles for women in a campaign world some of the best epic literary tropes become illogical. The very unusualness of these women made their stories outstanding and compelling even for men:



Stories based on sexism can be interesting, but so can stories not based on sexism.
If we can come up with stories and tropes and roles and campaign worlds that are just as good but don't express sexism as the norm, I think that would be much better.


----------



## Ariosto

The Evony ads (and similar): Yeah. Roll eyes.

There is to me a big difference among contexts. I can consider as part (but not a decisive one) that women have produced some of the finest of what might be called "cheesecake" -- as in the old _Weird Tales_, or on the cover of _Eldritch Wizardry_. Is it worth noting that (e.g.) Tanith Lee is female? Sure.

I would include Samuel R. Delany's _Tales of Nevèrÿon,_ though -- and other works by men -- in the category of things not to be castigated because they can appeal to prurient and even atavistic interests. Art must address the human condition as it is, even as it points to potentialities. There is a ground of mature seriousness in between the territories of the pornographic and the bowdlerized. There is the question of what the audience is expected to bring into relationship with the work.


----------



## Ariosto

I guess a worthwhile caveat is that most "porn" does not even work very well for me in terms of its own aims. The education of a palate certainly has much to do with the flavor of an offering.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Stories based on sexism can be interesting, but so can stories not based on sexism.




While not totally based on sexism, Ursula K. Le Guin's Earthsea books had a take on magic that included a difference between that practiced by men and that practiced by women.  Besides sexism, it could be said that it also has to do with contrast, opposing or complementary forces, Yin and Yang, and all that.

When the miniseries popped up on Sci-Fi, this divide was done away with, and the Academy at Roke Island became a kind of Hogwarts-esqe school for both sexes.

In doing away with this, the miniseries lost a bit of the narrative tension inherent in the source material, and provided nothing to replace it.

(That wasn't the only flaw that popped up in this production, but its the only one germane to the current discussion.)


----------



## Aus_Snow

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (That wasn't the only flaw that popped up in this production, but its the only one germane to the current discussion.)



Aye, certainly. Nor the most egregious, IMO.

/tj


----------



## Bumbles

I believe this says it best:

I can only admire Mr Halmi's imagination, but I wish he'd left mine alone.


----------



## kibbitz

shilsen said:


> Possibly, but it's hard to say without more context. For example, if all NPCs of note being male is common to the campaign world, then presumably that world (and/or the segment of it the PCs are involved with) is a patriarchal and sexist one. Conversely, if there's no in-game justification for it (and I think I've explained why I personally think explanations for in-game sexism aren't that great anyway) and you made the NPCs all male for no particular reason, and esp. if that's the norm in your adventures, then I think you're being a little sexist there.
> 
> But, as I noted, without more information it's hard to say.




I've been inactive for quite a while, so this was mostly in the past. Back then, pretty much every NPC was male because it never occurred to me to make a female NPC. I suppose if I were to make adventures now, I'd include some, but I don't see this working either out if I have to do equal representation. That sounds very artificial and without good reasons,  I'd rather randomly assign gender instead.


----------



## Imban

While I use the male pronoun for anyone who I don't care about the gender of, I'm vaguely sure that the gender balance of actual NPCs in my campaign worlds is pretty equitable. This is probably easier to handle as a writer or programmer, however, simply because you have the time to think about what you're writing (and in the latter case, get the computer to force a gender balance on mooks), not just issue a quick "He is cleaved in twain!" or "The orc is fried to a crisp!" or, if nothing comes to mind instantly, the good old standby of "It dies!"

As far as PCs, I'm generally not in favor of gender-based restrictions, even when they make sense to me (i.e. from a demographic standpoint, probably near 100% of vaguely-humanoid Hulking Hurlers and War Hulks are male, just as near 100% of Healers are female), because PCs are exceptional and exceptions can be fun sometimes.

Most of my settings I'd like to think are fairly egalitarian, with the only one I can remember that wasn't being a major country in one setting which had the most powerful men and women being literally different races, men not existing at all in the women's power structure (due to it being impossible for a man to be a Priestess), and women being generally oppressed out of the men's power structure (due to good old discrimination). This wasn't a character-limiting issue for the players, though, because none of them were from this country.

(Gender issues also get confusing in general when polymorphing gets involved - one of the PCs in that campaign had three grandmothers and one grandfather in her backstory.)


----------



## Ariosto

Oh, that Sci-Fi Channel "Earthsea" was so wrong in so many ways that even morbid curiosity could not keep me going!

The recasting of the school as gender-egalitarian is a problem because it makes a hash of later stories (the poignant _Tehanu_, in particular). We have the Harry Potter books to explore different themes.

The recasting of the cast as white is just blatantly racist as far as I can see.

Getting the protagonist's names mixed up is pretty bad, considering the importance of True Names in general and of one in particular.

Worst of all is the changing of the _character_ of characters, from the protagonist's aunt, to his rival at school, to -- most importantly of all -- himself. The whole meaning of the story gets shredded. 

Nice and neat and comfortable does not necessarily make for a good story!


----------



## Hussar

Heh, now how's that for a bit of irony.  I was just thinking of Ariosto and this thread when I read the following:



Ariosto said:


> If one is inclined to seek social commentary in the two-part novel that begins the Barsoom series (as with the Tarzan series) on a relatively literary note, then what stands front and center is the depiction of organized religion as an evil con game.
> 
> A four-armed Green Martian, yea even a gorilla, is held up as nobler than the aristocrats of Western Civilization regardless of complexion.
> 
> I don't know about you, but I would much rather have Dejah Thoris or Thuvia -- or the Red Lensman, or any one of countless competent females of "pulp fiction" -- at my six than one of today's hothouse flowers preoccupied with sex and frail as a clothes-hanger.




Perhaps a bit of sexism is extent in the fans of our hobby no?


----------



## Ariosto

If anyone can make sense of Hussar's out-of-context quote and quip, please help me out.

It's not that I cannot be insulted, just that I can't make head or tail of the accusation!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I'm guessing that this last bit:



> I don't know about you, but I would much rather have Dejah Thoris or Thuvia -- or the Red Lensman, or any one of countless competent females of "pulp fiction" -- at my six than one of today's hothouse flowers preoccupied with sex and frail as a clothes-hanger.




...may have been read as an indictment of women as being overly "frilly" in general.

While girlie-girls exist- my church's music minister married one a couple of years ago- they are but a subset of the female gender...as I'm sure you're aware.


----------



## Amy Kou'ai

shilsen said:


> I threw the above together in just 15 minutes of thinking about the subject, so pardon me if they’re not the best thought-out or creative solutions. But I hope they’re at least a decent starting point for thinking about the subject and how it can be dealt with in interesting ways.




Hey shilsen -- just as a caveat, I don't necessarily agree with your premises, but mostly because I don't really run into sexism on a regular basis.  This is probably due largely to where I currently live.

But, there is one area where I am willing to admit that sexism runs rampant, which is language.  I'm not really talking about pronoun use here -- I'm talking about the following sentence:

"The kobolds went berserk and killed his neighbor's wife!"

It takes awhile to figure out why this is sexist, unfortunately, because it feels like a completely natural sentence construction.  I'd ask you to add "watch your language" to your list of solutions, but to be honest, even recognizing that you're saying something with a hidden sexist viewpoint is very difficult.  But I thought I'd throw that in.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> But, there is one area where I am willing to admit that sexism runs rampant, which is language. I'm not really talking about pronoun use here -- I'm talking about the following sentence:
> 
> "The kobolds went berserk and killed his neighbor's wife!"
> 
> It takes awhile to figure out why this is sexist, unfortunately, because it feels like a completely natural sentence construction.




I'm calling shenanigans, here.

That _is_ completely natural sentence construction, and is no more nor no less sexist than:

"The kobolds went berserk and killed his neighbor's husband!"

...or "his neighbor's uncle," "cousin," "aunt" or any such similar verbiage.

Those who argue otherwise are reading too much into the possessive proceeding "wife".


----------



## Ariosto

Thanks, Dannyalcatraz. I was actually observing that Sturgeon's Laws are perennial. I was one of several people responding to Hussar's use of chauvinistic stereotypes (as substitute for real knowledge) to attack an individual and his work.

That is the problem with "isms" -- they depend upon ignorance, for they fall apart in engagement with the diversity among real people and the complexity of real phenomena.


----------



## Amy Kou'ai

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That _is_ completely natural sentence construction, and is no more nor no less sexist than:
> 
> "The kobolds went berserk and killed his neighbor's husband!"




Via Google, "neighbor's wife" gets 175,000 hits.  "Neighbor's husband" gets 7,630 hits.  Actual numbers don't matter; it's a question of magnitude: if "neighbor's husband" were a more natural sentence construction, you'd expect it not to be as uncommon by comparison.

Ask yourself: Why "neighbor's wife" rather than "neighbor"?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Amy Kou'ai said:


> Via Google, "neighbor's wife" gets 175,000 hits.  "Neighbor's husband" gets 7,630 hits.  Actual numbers don't matter; it's a question of magnitude: if "neighbor's husband" were a more natural sentence construction, you'd expect it not to be as uncommon by comparison.
> 
> Ask yourself: Why "neighbor's wife" rather than "neighbor"?




Lob me a softball, why don't you?

It is a natural sentence construction.  I can think of a few reasons within my daily life when I'd use it.  Mostly, they boil down to familiarity.  I hang out with a lot of married guys, but I seldom encounter their wives.  This is for a variety of reasons- some have disparate schedules, some (due to the nature of their work) live separately from their spouses.  In general, I'm more familiar with their husbands...some of those women I don't even know by name.  One guy's wife I haven't even met, and I've known the guy for 10 years.

And if you ask anyone who hangs out with a lot of "marrieds" you'd probably find a similar phenomenon.  "Bob's wife" may just reflect how familiar one guy is with another's spouse, simply because they don't travel in similar social orbits.

The reasons why you get more hits for "wife" rather than "husband" in an online search on that phrase include:

1) That phrase is found in the English translation of one of the 10 commandments.  That is going to net you lots of hits, both in the form of discussion of the passage itself, and writers making allusions to it.

2) "Thy Neighbor's Wife" is famous book written by Gay Talese that was also made into a movie- the title is an allusion to the Biblical passage noted above.  The nearest equivalent for "husband" is a single episode of the Dick Van Dyke show.  Which do you think will get more discussion and thus more hits- a single episode from a famous TV show, or a famous novel AND the movie made from it.

3) There are several porn sites that play off of the aforementioned Biblical passage- I presume in order to be more "naughty"- and we all know how much of an impact that industry has on the proliferation of sites on the Web.

If I bothered to spend real time on this, I could probably get the numbers down to about equal on those searches.


----------



## kolikeos

Amy Kou'ai said:


> "The kobolds went berserk and killed his neighbor's wife!"



At first I thought to myself:


Dannyalcatraz said:


> That _is_ completely natural sentence construction



And kept on reading...


Dannyalcatraz said:


> and is no more nor no less sexist than:
> 
> "The kobolds went berserk and killed his neighbor's husband!"



At which point I realized (to my horror) that "neighbor's wife" sounds much more natural than "neighbor's husband"! And assuming that wife and husband live together, that sentence should have ended with "neighbor" rather than "neighbor's wife"!
That just goes to show me how deeply sexism is rooted in our society. Even when I actively try to avoid assumptions about a role's sex (the neighbor is obviously male right? Since the default is male right?), I may still say things that suggest that I do make such assumptions, and no one, including me, will notice.
Watching one’s language is much harder than I thought. Thanks for bringing this to our attention.

Others might think "if no one notices then nobody is offended, if nobody is offended then what does it matter?"
For me it's not about avoiding offending people, my objection to sexism is much more likely to offend than actual sexist behavior (since most see it as the norm); it's about avoiding such discriminating behavior as much as possible in the hope that others might catch on.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

kolikeos said:


> At which point I realized (to my horror) that "neighbor's wife" sounds much more natural than "neighbor's husband"!




To your ears, perhaps...but not to everyone's.



> And assuming that wife and husband live together, that sentence should have ended with "neighbor" rather than "neighbor's wife"!




If you're really that close to your neighbors, shouldn't it have ended with "Bob" or "Carol?"

Besides, if you say:

"The kobolds went berserk and killed his neighbor!"

The follow-up question will be (depending upon family size)- 

"Which one?  The father, the mother, the son or the daughter?  Or do you mean the bachelor on the other side?"

The sentence construction with "neighbor's wife" actually imparts additional information into the conversation, alleviating (to some extent) the need for follow-up questions.

Here is a fear I have:

We spend too much time and energy going on about the minor (but admittedly extant) problem of "linguistic sexism," editing languages like the Ministries in Orwell's _1984_ (by which we hope to eradicate the capability of even forming sexist thoughts, I presume), and we'll get distracted from tackling the harder and more destructive issues of sexism in our respective cultures, like wage gaps.

Too much of the former, and even the word "sexism" will lose its ability to enrage- and thus motivate- much like my fellow black Americans' cries of "racism" over minor issues has led to fatigue and even a "Boy who cried wolf" type situation when we still have to deal with major racial issues.


----------



## Krensky

This is the problem with a lot of the academic efforts on addressing sexism or racism or whatever -ism. 

Rather then addressing the legal, cultural, and societal issues and that lead to both de jure and de facto sexism, it spends it's time twiddling around with 'discriminatory language' or 'biased representation' or 'political correctness' and pisses off a lot of people who would otherwise be disposed to their arguments and concerns.

Language, while massively important to how human consciousness and society, is not the source of the problem. The source of the problem are economic, cultural, legal, and socital pressures and problems. Linguistic bias is so far down on the list of causes that fretting over it is like worring if you left your cell phone charger plugged in and it's effects on your power bill while running your air conditioning system at max.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Oddly enough, I agree!


----------



## Amy Kou'ai

Krensky said:


> Language, while massively important to how human consciousness and society, is not the source of the problem. The source of the problem are economic, cultural, legal, and socital pressures and problems. Linguistic bias is so far down on the list of causes that fretting over it is like worring if you left your cell phone charger plugged in and it's effects on your power bill while running your air conditioning system at max.




I don't agree, because in my opinion, language is the filter with which you construct and interpret culture.

But _regardless of whether I agree or not_, you're not going to solve economic and societal sexism in a Dungeons and Dragons game.  I was just pointing out something that irritates me that pertains to the fundamentally narrative nature of D&D as an RPG.  If you're concerned about sexism in what is a subset of a subset of society, it's probably worth paying attention to the essential mechanism of communication.


----------



## kolikeos

I don't think language is the source of the problem, but I do think that language expresses society's way of thinking. When many people perceive something unhealthy as the norm, everything they do will be affected by their way of thought. It will affect the language they use and their worker's salaries as well as many other things.
I can't fight for anyone's wages here, but I can express my dislike of sexist language.
Either way, we are treating the symptoms of the disease.
We can only treat a fraction of those symptoms through D&D and ENworld.
To truly eradicate sexism we'd have to start with people's education from a young age.


----------



## billd91

Krensky said:


> This is the problem with a lot of the academic efforts on addressing sexism or racism or whatever -ism.
> 
> Rather then addressing the legal, cultural, and societal issues and that lead to both de jure and de facto sexism, it spends it's time twiddling around with 'discriminatory language' or 'biased representation' or 'political correctness' and pisses off a lot of people who would otherwise be disposed to their arguments and concerns.
> 
> Language, while massively important to how human consciousness and society, is not the source of the problem. The source of the problem are economic, cultural, legal, and socital pressures and problems. Linguistic bias is so far down on the list of causes that fretting over it is like worring if you left your cell phone charger plugged in and it's effects on your power bill while running your air conditioning system at max.




Academia spends time and effort on concerns of language, because they think they matter... and they might as well since they generally don't directly set public policy like politicians and government bureaucrats, they don't set company-wide compensation policies like company managers and HR departments. Academics do, however, often have a great influence on educational policy and teaching methods. And there, they can influence how we think about the world around us, arguably the most difficult aspect of tackling gender bias and discrimination. There's nothing saying we can't make headway on all of these issues.

For what it's worth, where I live and work, I'm far likely to hear fire fighter, police officer, and mail carrier now than I was 30 years ago as a child when the terms, by far, were fireman, policeman, and mailman. So, is that progress? I think so.

When it comes to politically correct speech, I notice that critics don't seem to notice that their own objections often come down to another form of politically correct speech. It's just that the political program they emphasize is not what you would consider traditionally "political" but one about upholding a conservative view of language standards, one that takes the practice of the language at some fixed point in the past before the academic feminists started working at it and makes that fixed point prescriptive.

It may be that the sexism inherent in language, turns of phrase, and so on is passive compared to the active sexism that causes women to make less money for the same work as men. But does that mean it should be ignored?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> But does that mean it should be ignored?




In Economics, there is the concept of an "economically acceptable level of crime."  That is, once it costs more to eliminate a certain crime by increasingly aggressive tactics than it does to tolerate it- taking into account_ all _of its externalities- then the economically sensible thing to do is to tolerate it at the current level of law enforcement.

IOW, the answer to your question is "Yes." if- considering all factors- it is more costly in terms of societal and personal effort to eradicate a form of verbal sexism than it is to tolerate it.

I have no problem with Mail Carrier vs Mail Man and the like...but does anyone remember the attempts to come up with gender-neutral pronouns to replace "him" "her" and all the variations?

If you've ever used one of those linguistic chimaera, you'd be the first I've ever encountered.  And if you can come up with one without doing an internet search or a dash to your bookshelf, I'd be surprised.

And is anyone at all using "womyn" on a regular basis?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The reasons why you get more hits for "wife" rather than "husband" in an online search on that phrase include:
> 
> 1) That phrase is found in the English translation of one of the 10 commandments.  That is going to net you lots of hits, both in the form of discussion of the passage itself, and writers making allusions to it.
> 
> 2) "Thy Neighbor's Wife" is famous book written by Gay Talese that was also made into a movie- the title is an allusion to the Biblical passage noted above.  The nearest equivalent for "husband" is a single episode of the Dick Van Dyke show.  Which do you think will get more discussion and thus more hits- a single episode from a famous TV show, or a famous novel AND the movie made from it.
> 
> 3) There are several porn sites that play off of the aforementioned Biblical passage- I presume in order to be more "naughty"- and we all know how much of an impact that industry has on the proliferation of sites on the Web.
> 
> If I bothered to spend real time on this, I could probably get the numbers down to about equal on those searches.




To further address this particular issue, I've now dedicated additional minutes of my life to this.

I eliminated those 3 specific parameters I listed above from the search, and pared down the results from 175,000 hits for "neighbor's wife" to just over 11,000.  In the interests of full disclosure, however, I _did not_ similarly eliminate the Dick Van Dyke results from the search for "neighbor's husband."

11k vs 7.5k is still a difference, but not nearly so much as it seemed at first blush.

I also did not do additional searches for "neighbor's son" or "neighbor's daughter" which would seem to be _age_ist if we follow the logic of the original assertion.


----------



## Ariosto

As one besotted with the English language, I find "womyn" ugly in part because it targets the wrong -- the gender-neutral -- component. It would be more elegant to my mind to come up with an appropriate masculine prefix corresponding to "wo-".

I understand, though, that I may be eccentric in that regard!

(It struck me as immediately and irrepressibly hilarious when once I encountered a sign reading "chair" where "chairman" was meant ... as if one might mistake the piece of furniture for a table or something.)

I find singular "they" theoretically as acceptable as the replacement of "thou" with "you", but in practice am more comfortable -- from long habit -- with "he or she" on those rare occasions when I have reason to refer with a pronoun to a person of indeterminate gender.


----------



## billd91

Dannyalcatraz said:


> IOW, the answer to your question is "Yes." if- considering all factors- it is more costly in terms of societal and personal effort to eradicate a form of verbal sexism than it is to tolerate it.
> 
> I have no problem with Mail Carrier vs Mail Man and the like...but does anyone remember the attempts to come up with gender-neutral pronouns to replace "him" "her" and all the variations?
> 
> If you've ever used one of those linguistic chimaera, you'd be the first I've ever encountered.  And if you can come up with one without doing an internet search or a dash to your bookshelf, I'd be surprised.
> 
> And is anyone at all using "womyn" on a regular basis?




I don't think anybody would say there isn't a point where there are diminishing returns, but there are sexist phrases, terms, and common connotations that certainly can stand to be replaced. Biblical translations that replace strictures against coveting your neighbor's _spouse_ certainly do the job of neighbor's wife, and do a more complete job of it to boot.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

billd91 said:


> Biblical translations that replace strictures against coveting your neighbor's _spouse_ certainly do the job of neighbor's wife, and do a more complete job of it to boot.




No argument there.


----------



## Midnight Dawns

Our language definitely does contain a bias; just look at the gender specific derogatory words we use. The female ones tend to be harsher ones than the ones for men (I will confess I actually can't think of any male specific ones at all at the moment but for women, "whore" is the only one I think that I can get away with mentioning on these boards). While this can reflect a bias in our society it also show the very male dominated roots of our culture. to a degree this is a problem as it keeps certain attitudes alive but there are other issues that should probably be addressed first as they are easier then having everyone relearn a language.


----------



## Krensky

Midnight Dawns said:


> Our language definitely does contain a bias; just look at the gender specific derogatory words we use. The female ones tend to be harsher ones than the ones for men (I will confess I actually can't think of any male specific ones at all at the moment but for women, "whore" is the only one I think that I can get away with mentioning on these boards). While this can reflect a bias in our society it also show the very male dominated roots of our culture. to a degree this is a problem as it keeps certain attitudes alive but there are other issues that should probably be addressed first as they are easier then having everyone relearn a language.




You're looking at the wrong end.

Derogatory phrase describing women tend to be harsher not because of any inherent value in the words (words don't have any inherent offensiveness). They are harsher because culturally it is more acceptable to insult a man then to offend a lady. The difference is further emphasized because insulting and derogatory phrases for men have become more commonly used, or the societal and cultural elements that made them deadly insults have been rejected or forgotten. Calling someone a bastard, a coward, a son of a..., a cuckold etc all used to be sufficient excuse for someone to beat you to a pulp.

Similarly, whether people like it or not 'man' is both masculine and neutral in gender. In Old English wer was masculine, wyf was feminine, and man neutral. Waepman and wyfman were also used. Eventually wer and waepman fell out of use in favor of using man for both masculine and neutral and wyfman completely supplanted wyf as the feminine term and wyf evolved into wife.

So if you want to correct the 'gender bias' in English, you need to dig a long, long way back. Easier to address actual inequalitiy then percieved inequality.

In a game context, follow the DMG II's advice and only worry about it is someone is offended. When playing NPCs focus on social class and world experience for reactions and let players play their characters as they wish, as long as they don't offend anyone else at the table.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Krensky said:


> You're looking at the wrong end.
> 
> Derogatory phrase describing women tend to be harsher not because of any inherent value in the words (words don't have any inherent offensiveness). They are harsher because culturally it is more acceptable to insult a man then to offend a lady. The difference is further emphasized because insulting and derogatory phrases for men have become more commonly used, or the societal and cultural elements that made them deadly insults have been rejected or forgotten. Calling someone a bastard, a coward, a son of a..., a cuckold etc all used to be sufficient excuse for someone to beat you to a pulp.




And in addition, there is that added implied threat of potential violence intrinsic in our higher muscle mass, etc., that exists when a man insults a woman (or really, _anyone_ smaller than the speaker) that simply doesn't exist in the reverse.

IOW, there's that whole implied "I just insulted you, what are you going to do now?" directed at the physically smaller person.

Not that there aren't women who aren't capable of defending themselves- that's been proven to me both statistically AND anecdotally (when a woman of my acquaintance chased her firearm-wielding hubby with a chainsaw, shortly before their divorce).

Honestly, I don't know how this focus on language structure got any traction in the first place.  One of my law profs- Zipporah Wiseman ( http://www.utexas.edu/law/faculty/profile.php?id=zwiseman )- pretty much ignored that in her seminars on women's legal issues.  It just didn't seem to matter to her.


----------



## S'mon

kolikeos said:


> We can only treat a fraction of those symptoms through D&D and ENworld.
> To truly eradicate sexism we'd have to start with people's education from a young age.




Not to mention genetic engineering.


----------



## kolikeos

S'mon said:


> Not to mention genetic engineering.




I'm not sure what you meant by that.
To clarify what I meant: behavior is the result of education, whether it's formal or just what you hear from the ones around you. Sexist behavior is what we are objecting to in this thread. If we change the language or enforce equal wages, we will only be dealing with the effects of this behavior.


----------



## Umbran

kolikeos said:


> If we change the language or enforce equal wages, we will only be dealing with the effects of this behavior.




The phrase that comes to mind is ironic, given that the character who spoke it was a misogynistic jerk.  However, it speaks to the point.  To quote Captain Hammer:

"It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds."


----------



## Amy Kou'ai

kolikeos said:


> To clarify what I meant: behavior is the result of education, whether it's formal or *just what you hear from the ones around you.* Sexist behavior is what we are objecting to in this thread. If we *change the language* or enforce equal wages, we will only be dealing with the effects of this behavior.




Please see bolded text.


----------



## Jeff Wilder

Krensky said:


> Derogatory phrase describing women tend to be harsher not because of any inherent value in the words (words don't have any inherent offensiveness). They are harsher because culturally it is more acceptable to insult a man then to offend a lady. The difference is further emphasized because insulting and derogatory phrases for men have become more commonly used, or the societal and cultural elements that made them deadly insults have been rejected or forgotten. Calling someone a bastard, a coward, a son of a..., a cuckold etc all used to be sufficient excuse for someone to beat you to a pulp.



This is interesting, but not entirely true.

Which is worse, calling a man a "bastard" or calling a man a "bitch"?  (And let's not even get into the C-word.)

The word matters.  And the words that are the biggest insults for men are the words that imply they are womanish.

Language matters, in many different ways, and claiming it doesn't matter is a very common tactic, both among those who honestly believe it and among those who know better (but want to dismiss it).  And it's shocking, I know, but these people -- both groups -- are pretty much always men.


----------



## kolikeos

Amy Kou'ai said:


> Please see bolded text.




Am I to understand that the language we hear around us is part of our education? I agree. It would seem then that language is not only a symptom but also part of the cause; which leads me to believe that watching one’s language is not such a waste of time as others here make it out to be.
If you meant something else then please clarify.


----------



## Krensky

Jeff Wilder said:


> Which is worse, calling a man a "bastard" or calling a man a "bitch"?  (And let's not even get into the C-word.)
> 
> The word matters.  And the words that are the biggest insults for men are the words that imply they are womanish.




But are those words really on the same place on the insult scale? And who using them? What is the context and the subtext?

A woman calling another woman a bitch in a friendly matter is a completely different thing from a man calling her one in anger. Reversed, me calling one of my old college friends a bastard in an endearing fashion is completely different then a woman doing so in anger.

And once again, we come back to my point that a man insulting a woman is worse then him insulting another man because insulting women is less socially acceptable.

As for the nature, most of the 'masculine' insults call in to question parentage and masculinity (wehter directly, by implying he's subservient to the women in his life, or unable to satisfy her need and desires - physical or otherwise) and those that don't deal with his inability to fit into the social heirarchy and belong to the Although interestingly some of the historically strongest ones deal with the insultee's matriline. Son of a bitch (which is a toss up if it was the original yo momma insult, or a round about way of calling a man a dog), bastard (which implies your mother was of loose virtue), son of a whore, etc. Insulting a man's mother is traditionally a far faster route to a broken nose then insulting his father.

Ancedotally, I've seen more similar resonses to insulting a woman's father or family in general rather then her mother, although I admit I do not know any standard insults of this fashion. Again, I suggest this is due to it being far less acceptable for a man to insult a woman and that women, again anecdotally, tend to be more subtle and creative in their insults to other women then men are to other men.

As for the C-word, it's equivalent would be the other c-word, but neither is always derogitory in use or nature.


----------



## Ariosto

What if the kung fu class were called the *nun*?

(Maybe this time, WotC will go for "martial artist".)


----------



## shilsen

kolikeos said:


> Stories based on sexism can be interesting, but so can stories not based on sexism.
> If we can come up with stories and tropes and roles and campaign worlds that are just as good but don't express sexism as the norm, I think that would be much better.




That's basically my take on it. If someone can't make creative stories without being sexist, in my book they aren't particularly creative.



Amy Kou'ai said:


> Hey shilsen -- just as a caveat, I don't necessarily agree with your premises, but mostly because I don't really run into sexism on a regular basis.  This is probably due largely to where I currently live.




Interesting. Where do you live?



> But, there is one area where I am willing to admit that sexism runs rampant, which is language.  I'm not really talking about pronoun use here -- I'm talking about the following sentence:
> 
> "The kobolds went berserk and killed his neighbor's wife!"
> 
> It takes awhile to figure out why this is sexist, unfortunately, because it feels like a completely natural sentence construction.  I'd ask you to add "watch your language" to your list of solutions, but to be honest, even recognizing that you're saying something with a hidden sexist viewpoint is very difficult.  But I thought I'd throw that in.




Nice example. And yes, watching and thinking about one's use of language is an important element, so thanks for the reminder. One of the most important elements, IMNSHO, precisely because it is so easy (as you note) to miss when one is being sexist via language.



Amy Kou'ai said:


> I don't agree, because in my opinion, language is the filter with which you construct and interpret culture.




Unsurprisingly, I agree (especially since I teach English and deal a lot with issues of language). I think a lot of people think of language as something which simply expresses their thoughts, and don't realize how the use of language also mediates, constructs and interprets those thoughts.



> But _regardless of whether I agree or not_, you're not going to solve economic and societal sexism in a Dungeons and Dragons game.  I was just pointing out something that irritates me that pertains to the fundamentally narrative nature of D&D as an RPG.  If you're concerned about sexism in what is a subset of a subset of society, it's probably worth paying attention to the essential mechanism of communication.




As noted above, I agree. 



kolikeos said:


> I don't think language is the source of the problem, but I do think that language expresses society's way of thinking.




And, as I was saying above, subtly (and sometimes not so subtly) affects society's way of thinking, hence its importance.



billd91 said:


> Academia spends time and effort on concerns of language, because they think they matter... and they might as well since they generally don't directly set public policy like politicians and government bureaucrats, they don't set company-wide compensation policies like company managers and HR departments. Academics do, however, often have a great influence on educational policy and teaching methods. And there, they can influence how we think about the world around us, arguably the most difficult aspect of tackling gender bias and discrimination. There's nothing saying we can't make headway on all of these issues.




Agreed, and not just because I'm an academic, since I tend to be fairly leery of many things which are taken for granted in academia. 



> When it comes to politically correct speech, I notice that critics don't seem to notice that their own objections often come down to another form of politically correct speech. It's just that the political program they emphasize is not what you would consider traditionally "political" but one about upholding a conservative view of language standards, one that takes the practice of the language at some fixed point in the past before the academic feminists started working at it and makes that fixed point prescriptive.




That's a very good point. People who decry political correctness as ideological rarely take into account exactly how ideological (and exclusionary) their own positions are. 



> It may be that the sexism inherent in language, turns of phrase, and so on is passive compared to the active sexism that causes women to make less money for the same work as men. But does that mean it should be ignored?






kolikeos said:


> I'm not sure what you meant by that.
> To clarify what I meant: behavior is the result of education, whether it's formal or just what you hear from the ones around you. Sexist behavior is what we are objecting to in this thread. If we change the language or enforce equal wages, we will only be dealing with the effects of this behavior.




As billd91 notes above, just because something is a symptom of a behavior doesn't mean one shouldn't address it too. Plus sexism (like most -isms) doesn't just flow in one direction, but is a cyclical and self-perpetuating system. The existence of sexist language and unequal wages isn't only a symptom, but helps reinforce a sexist status quo and enables people to think that its acceptable. 



Jeff Wilder said:


> This is interesting, but not entirely true.
> 
> Which is worse, calling a man a "bastard" or calling a man a "bitch"?  (And let's not even get into the C-word.)
> 
> The word matters.  And the words that are the biggest insults for men are the words that imply they are womanish.




True. I think some of the comments earlier on this thread (and page) about how insults don't have a sexist component are shortsighted at best, and disingenuous in certain ways. 



> Language matters, in many different ways, and claiming it doesn't matter is a very common tactic, both among those who honestly believe it and among those who know better (but want to dismiss it).  And it's shocking, I know, but these people -- both groups -- are pretty much always men.




Or at least predominantly so, I'd say. I think this is part of the whole issue of people who are empowered or privileged by the status quo attempting (sometimes quite honestly, which doesn't make it more excusable, of course) to argue that the status quo is egalitarian. Yeah, right!



kolikeos said:


> Am I to understand that the language we hear around us is part of our education? I agree. It would seem then that language is not only a symptom but also part of the cause; which leads me to believe that watching one’s language is not such a waste of time as others here make it out to be.
> If you meant something else then please clarify.




Funnily enough, you stated earlier that changing language is only changing the effects of sexist behavior. As indicated above, I agree with what you say here much more. Language, like many other aspects of sexism, is both symptom and cause. And needs to be addressed.


----------



## shilsen

On the tangent about language and insults, here's a small exercise I've used in my classes when talking about how language not only expresses but affects the way people think. 

I get my students to come up with nouns for a woman who has sex with a lot of people. They usually come up with a large list. And then I ask them to come up with nouns for a man who has sex with a lot of people. Suddenly the list is far smaller. And, as some of them note even before I point it out, the terms for a promiscuous man are often favorable, whereas the ones for a promiscuous woman are usually highly critical. The very nature and vocabulary of the English language makes it more difficult to disapprove of masculine promiscuity than female promiscuity. 

My primary aim when using the exercise is to show how language affects perception and thought, but it's also an interesting way to look at how language treats the sexes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> "The kobolds went berserk and killed his neighbor's wife!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice example.
Click to expand...



Respectfully disagreeing- especially given my counterexamples with "son," "daughter," and the like.

While the example _does_ indicate a possible difference in the speaker's relationship with the neighbor and the wife, it is _not *inherent*_ in the sentence's construction that the difference is sexist in nature.

The person being addressed might not be aware the neighbor was married, for instance, and the speaker- aware of this knowledge gap- efficiently communicates the entirety of the circumstances to the listener while staving off misunderstanding.


----------



## Rel

shilsen said:


> I get my students to come up with nouns for a woman who has sex with a lot of people.




Um..."The Best Thing About America"!

Wait...that's not a noun is it?

Crap.  I'm terrible at this.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

shilsen said:


> On the tangent about language and insults, here's a small exercise I've used in my classes when talking about how language not only expresses but affects the way people think.
> 
> I get my students to come up with nouns for a woman who has sex with a lot of people. They usually come up with a large list. And then I ask them to come up with nouns for a man who has sex with a lot of people. Suddenly the list is far smaller. And, as some of them note even before I point it out, the terms for a promiscuous man are often favorable, whereas the ones for a promiscuous woman are usually highly critical. The very nature and vocabulary of the English language makes it more difficult to disapprove of masculine promiscuity than female promiscuity.




Not denying your accuracy of the proportions of that list- because its undeniable- I do nonetheless have a question about it.

Much like I did when I discussed the search on "neighbor's wife," I wonder about the actual breakdown of the synonyms your students brought up.

IOW, I'm asking if you noted things like how many of those terms were synonyms for prostitute?  I could probably come up with a few dozen for female prostitute, and would probably be several dozen short from being anywhere near comprehensive.  In contrast, I can come up with perhaps only a dozen synonyms for male prostitutes.

Most of which would be for _gay_ male prostitutes...and of _that_ subset, several have been used as derogatory terms for men.

But part of that linguistic disparity would be because the ratio of male prostitutes to female ones is vanishingly small.  There is just simply less linguistic pressure to come up with nicknames & synonyms for something so rare.

That said, even though that would reduce the disparity, it would by no means come close to eliminating it.

In addition, even if we use the same words to describe promiscuous men and women, the_ implications _still differ- a man called a "slut" or "tailchaser" is likely to have that label hung on him with a wink and a nudge.

(which is partly derived from biology...)


----------



## Krensky

shilsen said:


> That's basically my take on it. If someone can't make creative stories without being sexist, in my book they aren't particularly creative.




An English teacher who hates the Bard. Will wonders never cease?



shilsen said:


> Nice example. And yes, watching and thinking about one's use of language is an important element, so thanks for the reminder. One of the most important elements, IMNSHO, precisely because it is so easy (as you note) to miss when one is being sexist via language.




How sexist it is or isn't is impossible to determine without more information. The most likely reason for a man to structure the phrase in that way has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with the relative strength and closeness of relationship. The norm in human societies (heck, hominid societies) would be for him to associate with the other males in his community far more often and intimately then the females. Since the emotional links with his his neighbor Bob are stronger and more intimate then his neighbor Jill the phrase is structured as my neighbor's wife.



shilsen said:


> Unsurprisingly, I agree (especially since I teach English and deal a lot with issues of language). I think a lot of people think of language as something which simply expresses their thoughts, and don't realize how the use of language also mediates, constructs and interprets those thoughts.




All of which is shaped by biology and neurology in particular.



shilsen said:


> True. I think some of the comments earlier on this thread (and page) about how insults don't have a sexist component are shortsighted at best, and disingenuous in certain ways. [...] I think this is part of the whole issue of people who are empowered or privileged by the status quo attempting (sometimes quite honestly, which doesn't make it more excusable, of course) to argue that the status quo is egalitarian. Yeah, right!




And now, as the joke goes, we see the violence inherent in the system. Anyone who disagrees with the 'acceptable' position must be belittled, insulted, marginalized, and demonized. You don't know who I am, what my politics, beliefs, and experiences are. The status quo in the first world is very egalitarian in the broad sweep but, like everything, it's the details that matter the most. Minorities and women were long excluded in practice from exercising the rights they had on paper. In some cases they still are. It is just as racist or sexist to assume a man of European descent is a liar, cad, or villain for disagreeing with theory underpinning political correctness, person first construction, or any of the other myriad ideas thought up to correct human behavior by addressing perceived flaws in language. Especially since they often ignore the fact that there are sound biological reasons underpinning much of the flawed behavior. As a species, we've developed to the point most if them are more harmful the good. Much like our dietary and eating habits, which make perfect sense for a hunter/gatherer/scavenging great ape, are not particularly well suited to a ludicrously wealthy (in a caloric sense), industrialized society. Similarly, most of the biologic underpinnings of sexism and racism are completely irrelevant in the 'modern' world. Ignoring them in favor of twiddling with language, however is a waste of time. Teaching people to recognise and control these instincts and biologic influences is a far better way to spend one's time. Another is addressing issues of hate mongering and racism as they appear in children. The issues can be addressed, but it will take a generation or more to have meaningful effects, and possibly several more before it's essentially gone. In the mean time replacing ever chairman and chairwoman with chairpeople is shuffling the deckchairs.


----------



## kolikeos

shilsen said:


> Funnily enough, you stated earlier that changing language is only changing the effects of sexist behavior. As indicated above, I agree with what you say here much more. Language, like many other aspects of sexism, is both symptom and cause. And needs to be addressed.



As noted, I changed my mind. I won't stay conservative if there's a logical reason not to.
After all, if we didn't allow ourselves the option to change our minds we would have just stuck to the sexist status quo and wouldn't be discussing this here.
I agree with what you said about the "cyclical system". Our behavior forms a large part of the next generation's education; which means that unless we change our behavior, the future generation will learn to be as sexist as we are now.

On the subject of sexist insults:
I have heard the word "woman" being used as a demeaning insult for men, usually replacing "coward", "weakling" or "stupid". "Gay" may be used to the same effect.
On the other hand, "man" will be used as a compliment for men and women, indicating bravery, strength, intellect, cunning or toughness.
Both are used freely by men and woman where I live.


----------



## S'mon

kolikeos said:


> I'm not sure what you meant by that.
> To clarify what I meant: behavior is the result of education, whether it's formal or just what you hear from the ones around you. Sexist behavior is what we are objecting to in this thread. If we change the language or enforce equal wages, we will only be dealing with the effects of this behavior.




I mean behaviour is a mix of nature and nurture - genes and environment.  You would need to change both, eg eliminate body dimorphism so males were no longer bigger and stronger than females. Eliminate or compensate for variable testosterone levels, pregnancy, and other inherent factors causing variable behaviour.  It would probably be easiest to eliminate males entirely although you would probably want to retain sexual reproduction.


----------



## S'mon

shilsen said:


> On the tangent
> I get my students to come up with nouns for a woman who has sex with a lot of people. They usually come up with a large list. And then I ask them to come up with nouns for a man who has sex with a lot of people. Suddenly the list is far smaller. And, as some of them note even before I point it out, the terms for a promiscuous man are often favorable, whereas the ones for a promiscuous woman are usually highly critical.




It's a question of investment.  Having sex with lots of women has favourable effects for the genetic legacy of a man's relatives (lots of children they don't have to care for).  Having sex with lots of men does not have such favourable effects for the genetic legacy of  a woman's relatives, it may even be disfavourable in harsher conditions (lots of children of unknown parentage they have to care for).


----------



## kolikeos

S'mon said:


> I mean behaviour is a mix of nature and nurture - genes and environment.  You would need to change both, eg eliminate body dimorphism so males were no longer bigger and stronger than females. Eliminate or compensate for variable testosterone levels, pregnancy, and other inherent factors causing variable behaviour.  It would probably be easiest to eliminate males entirely although you would probably want to retain sexual reproduction.




Animals behave the way they do because of their biology. Their thinking capabilities are limited so they can't decide what is preferable for them and learn to change their behavior accordingly.
Since we as humans do have the mental capacity necessary to decide and change (as demonstrated by the fact that some of us here have decided that we do not want to discriminate or be discriminated and have changed our behavior accordingly), I think we should use that to our advantage.

What you have suggested may not be as objectionable as you might think. If genetic engineering could have easily got rid of discriminating behavior then it would have been an acceptable solution, but I'm not sure that is the case.
The elimination of males on the other hand, is. By opposing discrimination I aspire to reach equality, and not another form of discrimination.


----------



## Mallus

Krensky said:


> An English teacher who hates the Bard. Will wonders never cease?



Actually, I know for a fact that shil loves Shakesspeare. What makes you think otherwise? I'm fairly sure the line you quoted wasn't meant to refer to all authors, from any culture, over all time. 



> How sexist it is or isn't is impossible to determine without more information. The most likely reason for a man to structure the phrase in that way has nothing to do with sexism and everything to do with the relative strength and closeness of relationship.



That's how I read it. The phrase "my neighbor's husband" or "my neighbors wife" denote the speaker's perceived relationship to those individuals, nothing more. 



> Anyone who disagrees with the 'acceptable' position must be belittled, insulted, marginalized, and demonized. You don't know who I am, what my politics, beliefs, and experiences are.



A touch defensive, no? I mean, he called my beloved new campaign setting a bit sexist (I DM for him IRL). While I disagree to some extent, it did get me thinking. 

I should post those disagreements. Later, though, I've errands to run. Here's a teaser though... is there a meaningful difference between something being androcentric and andronormative (wait, are those even words??).


----------



## S'mon

kolikeos said:


> Animals behave the way they do because of their biology. Their thinking capabilities are limited...




The thinking capacity of humans is also limited, certainly in the aggregate.  We do respond to environmental stimuli, but we also respond to our biological coding.  This is one reason why efforts to change group behaviour often fail or have unforseen results.

As for eliminating the male sex (not by murdering anyone, but by ensuring all embryos develop as female), I'm not sure why you think this violates your notion of equality.  A one-sex species will have less inequality than a two-sex species.  Since we males commit around ten times as much violent crime as females, there would be other benefits too.  I don't personally advocate the attempt, but more because (a) I expect it would fail horribly, due to our limited competence and (b) I think the differences - the inequalities - between men and women are themselves valuable.


----------



## Ariosto

> Since we males commit around ten times as much violent crime as females, there would be other benefits too.



Don't count your chickens before they're hatched! There many other sex disparities in division of labor, but it does not follow that such enterprises would be abandoned if only members of one sex or the other remained to fill the positions. (Note that some ethnic groups are vastly over-represented in some occupations, but the presence of the occupations themselves is not dependent on them.)

There was a graphic novel a while ago treating the extinction of males (with the exception of one fugitive man).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

That would be Y: The Last Man.

Actually, the elimination of one sex or another is not an uncommon trope in sci-fi.  Besides that graphic novel, the extinction (virtual or actual) of men shows up in certain works by Michael Moorcock, episodes of tv shows like Star Trek, Outer Limits etc., and in one particularly bad movie that springs to mind in which women from the future traveled back in time to find "manly" men to rejuvenate the species (the only males in the future were ultra-feminine caricatures)...and they manage to harvest a bunch of criminals.

And on the flip side, the first that springs to mind is Frank Herbert's _The White Plague_.


----------



## Ariosto

> And on the flip side, the first that springs to mind is Frank Herbert's _The White Plague_.




Then there's the really twisted "The Screwfly Solution".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

The Showtime "Masters of Horror" version of that...very well done.


----------



## shilsen

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not denying your accuracy of the proportions of that list- because its undeniable- I do nonetheless have a question about it.
> 
> Much like I did when I discussed the search on "neighbor's wife," I wonder about the actual breakdown of the synonyms your students brought up.
> 
> IOW, I'm asking if you noted things like how many of those terms were synonyms for prostitute?




I did, actually, and that's something which we tied into our discussion of language and its effect on thought and ideas.



> That said, even though that would reduce the disparity, it would by no means come close to eliminating it.
> 
> In addition, even if we use the same words to describe promiscuous men and women, the_ implications _still differ- a man called a "slut" or "tailchaser" is likely to have that label hung on him with a wink and a nudge.
> 
> (which is partly derived from biology...)




I agree about the wink and the nudge, but not about the biology. There's no rational reason why human biology should make promiscuity more acceptable in men than women. There are a few irrational reasons, of course, which disciplines (I use the term loosely) such as evolutionary psychology try to make a lot of capital out of. The issue is more of a cultural one (and hence, in this case language-based), which is why there have been multiple cultures in which prostitution (male or female) and promiscuity have not been considered negative as they are in, say, 20th and 21st century American society.



Krensky said:


> An English teacher who hates the Bard. Will wonders never cease?




As Mallus pointed out above, I love Shakespeare (he's a major part of my dissertation). But I might like him a lot less if his treatment and presentation of the sexes was being done in the 21st century by someone writing stories about people in a fantasy world. My comment wasn't universal to all times, writers and subject matter.



> All of which is shaped by biology and neurology in particular.




I beg to differ, based on the vast difference in language formations across human history and even today. Unless someone can prove that the biology and neurology of a New Yorker, a Bushman, a Bengali and an Inuit are hugely 
different from each other.



> And now, as the joke goes, we see the violence inherent in the system. Anyone who disagrees with the 'acceptable' position must be belittled, insulted, marginalized, and demonized. You don't know who I am, what my politics, beliefs, and experiences are. The status quo in the first world is very egalitarian in the broad sweep but, like everything, it's the details that matter the most. Minorities and women were long excluded in practice from exercising the rights they had on paper. In some cases they still are. It is just as racist or sexist to assume a man of European descent is a liar, cad, or villain for disagreeing with theory underpinning political correctness, person first construction, or any of the other myriad ideas thought up to correct human behavior by addressing perceived flaws in language.




Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. I didn't say one is necessarily a liar, cad or villain for disagreeing. One could also simply be ill-informed or just plain wrong 



> Especially since they often ignore the fact that there are sound biological reasons underpinning much of the flawed behavior.




Depends on who's judging the soundness thereof. A reasonably creative person can come up with a "sound" biological reason for literally any behavior. As evolutionary biologists, for example, often do. But people have done that for millennia, and just because an argument is creative doesn't mean it's true. Aristotle had some very creative explanations for natural phenomena based on what was known of their biology. He was also mostly dead wrong. In my estimation, so are much of the supposed "sound biological reasons" which are used to justify sexism, racism, et al. Not least because none of them can actually be proved. And many can at least be heavily questioned based on the variation in societies across the world, both historically and in modern times.



> Similarly, most of the biologic underpinnings of sexism and racism are completely irrelevant in the 'modern' world. Ignoring them in favor of twiddling with language, however is a waste of time. Teaching people to recognise and control these instincts and biologic influences is a far better way to spend one's time.




With my previous caveat about the biologic underpinnings, I agree about it being a problem if one *only* twiddles with language. Even though language is highly important, IMNSHO. Luckily, since we can multitask and have 24 hrs in a day, we can twiddle with language *and* teach people to act more intelligently. Win, win.



> Another is addressing issues of hate mongering and racism as they appear in children. The issues can be addressed, but it will take a generation or more to have meaningful effects, and possibly several more before it's essentially gone. In the mean time replacing ever chairman and chairwoman with chairpeople is shuffling the deckchairs.




Sometimes you have to shuffle the deckchairs to clean the deck.



kolikeos said:


> As noted, I changed my mind. I won't stay conservative if there's a logical reason not to.
> After all, if we didn't allow ourselves the option to change our minds we would have just stuck to the sexist status quo and wouldn't be discussing this here.




Good point. And my comment, in case it came across that way, wasn't a criticism. Much the contrary, in fact, for the reason you mentioned.



> I agree with what you said about the "cyclical system". Our behavior forms a large part of the next generation's education; which means that unless we change our behavior, the future generation will learn to be as sexist as we are now.




Yup. Which is one area where language is vitally important, I think. Trying to educate the next generation to not be sexist while using sexist language is totally counterproductive, I think.



> On the subject of sexist insults:
> I have heard the word "woman" being used as a demeaning insult for men, usually replacing "coward", "weakling" or "stupid". "Gay" may be used to the same effect.
> On the other hand, "man" will be used as a compliment for men and women, indicating bravery, strength, intellect, cunning or toughness.
> Both are used freely by men and woman where I live.




Agreed, with the addition that there are also more subtle examples of the same occurring constantly in language, where masculinity is promoted as a virtue or strength, and femininity as a flaw or weakness.



S'mon said:


> I mean behaviour is a mix of nature and nurture - genes and environment.




True, but in our modern society I'd lay a whole lot more emphasis on nurture than nature, and even more on personal choice (which is mediated but not totally created by nature or nurture). There are a huge number of behaviors in society which we don't allow for biology to justify, so it always seems arbitrary to me for it to be trotted out as a justification for sexism. To quote (roughly) my girlfriend from a moment ago, "I biologically need to pee right now, but I'm choosing not to do so. I can bloody well choose not to be sexist."



> You would need to change both, eg eliminate body dimorphism so males were no longer bigger and stronger than females. Eliminate or compensate for variable testosterone levels, pregnancy, and other inherent factors causing variable behaviour. It would probably be easiest to eliminate males entirely although you would probably want to retain sexual reproduction.




I see body dimorphism mentioned (as well as the other factors you mentioned) as a factor for sexism, and I really don't see it. Not only should body dimorphism only matter in a very limited way in modern society, but there have been (and continue to be) a number of societies where the existence of body dimorphism and the other factors you mentioned doesn't lead to a patriarchal society or sexism in general. 



S'mon said:


> It's a question of investment.  Having sex with lots of women has favourable effects for the genetic legacy of a man's relatives (lots of children they don't have to care for).  Having sex with lots of men does not have such favourable effects for the genetic legacy of  a woman's relatives, it may even be disfavourable in harsher conditions (lots of children of unknown parentage they have to care for).




That's another of those cute arguments from evolutionary psychology which is kinda plausible, but (a) can't be proved as accurate and (b) is given the lie by one of the things that evolutionary psychology loves to draw on, i.e. non-human species. There are multiple species where the female is way more promiscuous than the male. Promiscuity isn't all about biology, and it's not all about biology in a single way either. 

And one could just as arguably say that it makes sense for men to only have sex rarely and with one woman, since that heavily increases the chances of getting her pregnant and diminishes the chances of him getting his ass kicked by the relatives/lovers of the multiple women he's sleeping with (note: it's funny how biological arguments about behavior often fail to consider that people's actions are usually based on protecting their individual selves, not their species). And that it makes sense for a woman to have sex with lots of men, since it raises the chances of pregnancy and the passing on of her genetic legacy (note: also funny how these biological arguments tend to focus on men passing on their legacy and not women).

In short, what you mentioned is (to repeat myself) a cute and creative story to justify some form of behavior. But I can just as easily come up with another cute story to say that form of behavior is not justifiable.



kolikeos said:


> Animals behave the way they do because of their biology. Their thinking capabilities are limited so they can't decide what is preferable for them and learn to change their behavior accordingly.
> Since we as humans do have the mental capacity necessary to decide and change (as demonstrated by the fact that some of us here have decided that we do not want to discriminate or be discriminated and have changed our behavior accordingly), I think we should use that to our advantage.




Unsurprisingly, seconded. I have significant issues with people justifying their dumb behavior by saying it's just in their biological nature. Somehow I don't see that argument trotted out for justifying other people's dumb behavior, or that which disadvantages the speaker.



> What you have suggested may not be as objectionable as you might think. If genetic engineering could have easily got rid of discriminating behavior then it would have been an acceptable solution, but I'm not sure that is the case.
> The elimination of males on the other hand, is. By opposing discrimination I aspire to reach equality, and not another form of discrimination.




Again, agreed.



			
				Mallus said:
			
		

> I should post those disagreements. Later, though, I've errands to run. Here's a teaser though... is there a meaningful difference between something being androcentric and andronormative (wait, are those even words??).




For what it's worth, Google has 92,000 hits for "androcentric" and only 44 for "andronormative" (one of the first ones being your post!), and Merriam-Webster only recognizes the former. Personally, I'd say there's a subtle distinction but they're close enough for it to not be a meaningful difference.



S'mon said:


> The thinking capacity of humans is also limited, certainly in the aggregate.  We do respond to environmental stimuli, but we also respond to our biological coding.  This is one reason why efforts to change group behaviour often fail or have unforseen results.




Perhaps, but whether it's a big reason or not is up for debate. As is the question of how much we respond to biological coding - or how much we should.



> As for eliminating the male sex (not by murdering anyone, but by ensuring all embryos develop as female), I'm not sure why you think this violates your notion of equality.  A one-sex species will have less inequality than a two-sex species.  Since we males commit around ten times as much violent crime as females, there would be other benefits too.  I don't personally advocate the attempt, but more because (a) I expect it would fail horribly, due to our limited competence and (b) I think the differences - the inequalities - between men and women are themselves valuable.




Personally, I think the differences between men and women are often overstated and not really inherent to either gender. The differences between individuals are usually much larger and more interesting.


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Sigh. This thread is back again? I haven't been around for a while, but when I came back, I really wasn't hoping to see this thread.

Still, as I stated upthread, I feel compelled to post as some sort of public service.

To summarize my position for anyone who's jumping in here:

1. Biology, including sexual biology, influences human thought, on average. That says nothing about any given individual.

2. There are centuries of evidence to support Point 1. Shilsen and others dismiss this evidence for any number of spurious reasons.

3. Sexism should be defined as making judgments based on sex, which isn't always a bad thing. Most of us are 100% sexist with regard to bathrooms, sports, dating, and clothing, for examples. That is not a bad thing, and no one should feel guilty for being sexist in this way.

4. ENWorld and gaming in general are not sexist in any bad way. There is nothing wrong with cheesecake art or wanting to play in games where knights rescue princesses. No one else has a right to tell you how to play your game. The way you play your game does not hurt anyone else. 

5. All that said, there are some ways to play RPGs that I find distasteful. If that's what we're talking about - the topic of this thread has changed several times - then sure, some ways are more distasteful than others. But ENWorld and WOTC-vanilla D&D in no way comes anywhere close to a level of anything, least of all sexism, that I find distasteful. Claiming that they do strikes me as a classic academic powergrab.

6. Here's how a classic academic powergrab works. Lay people are told from on high that they haven't noticed something very important, something that is hurting people. Research has discovered this harm. Now that the lay people are scared that they're hurting someone in their ignorance, they change their behavior according to what the academics say. It's the same way that born-again Christians like Kirk Cameron evangelize. In fact, Kirk will explain it for you and teach you how to do it on WayoftheMaster dot com.

In regard to this thread - and I could be wrong about this - but it seems that we are in danger of being told by people who claim superior knowledge that what we are doing with our gaming, and what WOTC is doing with their products, is hurting someone. Namely, women. We haven't noticed because we are too ignorant. But now that we see what is going on, we should change our gaming, or our ENWorld community, or WOTC's products. Again, that's my interpretation, but it seems to me that's what's going on. Actually, though, the exact topic has changed so many times in this thread that it's hard to know what the main point is. I do feel insulted by this thread, though, since I seem to be told that my appreciation for WOTC and ENWorld is in some part badwrongfun thanks to WOTC and ENWorld hurting girls. (As an aside, can anyone confirm that for me? Is that what you all are saying?)

7. There are few concepts in civilized thought that are more important than individual liberty and the scientific method. To mindlessly ascribe the general traits of a group to every individual in that group is poor thinking at its worst.

8. For those of you that want to do some reading on what this thread is about (I think  ), please read Camille Paglia, Wendy McElroy, Stephen Pinker, John Stuart Mill, Richard Dawkins, heck even Charles Darwin. For the other side of the debate, try Naomi Wolf, Catherine Mackinnon, Ben Barres, Elizabeth Spelke, and Plato.



shilsen said:


> ...note: it's funny how biological arguments about behavior often fail to consider that people's actions are usually based on protecting their individual selves, not their species...




Shilsen, I think when you kept saying "evolutionary biology" in your recent post, you really meant "evolutionary psychology." Is that right? I suppose that technically the latter is a subset of the former, at least to my thinking, but I wouldn't think it would be to yours. Not sure.

And in regards to the passage I quoted, your statement about biological arguments is false. What you say biological arguments don't do, they in fact do. All the time. That's the whole point. Who are you reading that gives a biological argument for organisms' behavior being based on protecting the species rather than the individual? I could see you maybe thinking that Dawkins says that, but in fact he says that the genes themselves are selfish, and that macroscopic altruism can arise from microscopic selfishness.


----------



## Krensky

I spent over an hour writing a post, but then I decided it was a waste of time.

As long as the other party believes that humans are the special little snow flakes of the animal kingdom and that we operate on completely different rules then every other animal there's no chance of any progress.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> There's no rational reason why human biology should make promiscuity more acceptable in men than women.




Several million years of primate sexuality and social dynamics would beg to differ.

Male primates "win" at the game of evolution by having as many partners as possible, since this increases the chances of their producing offspring.

Female primates "win" when they find an individual (or in some species, a group) willing to protect them during their relatively long and debilitating pregnancy and the immediately subsequent unusually long infancy & development of their offspring.

As rational & evolved human beings with an advanced culture, we can override, to some extent, these primal drives.  But despite our achievements, we're still primates.  Those basic animal drives- complete with ancient victory conditions- still exist as the underpinnings of our civilized minds.



> The issue is more of a cultural one (and hence, in this case language-based), which is why there have been multiple cultures in which prostitution (male or female) and promiscuity have not been considered negative as they are in, say, 20th and 21st century American society.




I dare say that while prostitution and promiscuity have never been more demonized than in countries steeped in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions (in any era), the number of societies in which  prostitution (either sex) and female promiscuity are considered normative, natural or otherwise respectable are exceedingly rare.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Ycore Rixle said:


> Shilsen, I think when you kept saying "evolutionary biology" in your recent post, you really meant "evolutionary psychology." Is that right? I suppose that technically the latter is a subset of the former, at least to my thinking, but I wouldn't think it would be to yours. Not sure.




I am *so* very much not going to touch the arguments in this thread now (I said my peace like ten trillion pages back, when the world was young, dinosaurs roamed the earth, and this thread was started) but there is a very sizable difference between evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, and yes, Shilsen is very much talking about the latter, not the former.  The former, you see, is an excepted and welcomed branch of science, while the latter...well, let's just say they have quite a few people who very *sharply* disagree with them and their claim to scientific analysis.  It is contentious, to say the least.


----------



## S'mon

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As rational & evolved human beings with an advanced culture, we can override, to some extent, these primal drives.




We can override them in the short term.  The problem is, groups & populations which override them may well* have lower fertility rates than those which do not.  With more or less free movement of populations, this leads to the replacement over time of the less fertile populations by more fertile populations. 

*The evidence from national fertility rates seems to indicate that the fully Shilsenised populations of eg Scandinavia (where there is a high degree of sex equality, state childcare provision, and males are trained to be less masculine) actually have somewhat higher fertility rates than populations of semi-Shilsenised countries like Greece, Italy, Japan and Russia, where women take on traditional male roles but are also expected to continue in traditional female roles, and the men remain 'macho'.  Both groups have sub-replacement female fertility rates though, the Shilsenised nations around 1.6 and the semi-Shilsenised around 1.3.  Nations with above-replacement fertility tend to enforce traditional sex roles (which vary a lot, from those which sequester women to the female-farming societies which in many ways are run by women).  The US is a rather unusual case as it looks more like a semi-Shilsenised society culturally but its overall fertility rate is at replacement level; influenced by high minority rates, but even the white female fertility rate is unusually high at around 1.8.  France looks a bit like the US.  This may be influenced by relatively low population density in both nations that keeps family formation more affordable, and in the US case high religiosity may be an influence.


----------



## S'mon

shilsen said:


> I see body dimorphism mentioned (as well as the other factors you mentioned) as a factor for sexism, and I really don't see it. Not only should body dimorphism only matter in a very limited way in modern society, but there have been (and continue to be) a number of societies where the existence of body dimorphism and the other factors you mentioned doesn't lead to a patriarchal society or sexism in general.
> 
> And one could just as arguably say that it makes sense for men to only have sex rarely and with one woman, since that heavily increases the chances of getting her pregnant and diminishes the chances of him getting his ass kicked by the relatives/lovers of the multiple women he's sleeping with




On the latter point, yes, and indeed that is a very common reproductive strategy in many cultures, one I myself follow.   It's particularly common in those where the environment encourages high parental investment, and where the man can be fairly sure any children from that women will be his - ie female fathfulness complements male faithfulness.

On the former point, can you give me an example of a society where "the existence of body dimorphism and the other factors you mentioned doesn't lead to a patriarchal society or sexism in general"?  I can think of societies which do not have a traditional-European-style patriarchal structure, but none without role differentiation by sex.  There have been occasional attempts to claim the existence of non-sexist traditional societies (eg M Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa), but these don't seem to have withstood critical scrutiny.  The modern Scandinavian societies seem closest to me, at least nominally and ideologically.


----------



## Tallifer

Hrm... I play roleplaying games to escape politics, finances, sexual politics and other stressful topics.

(So I will not burden you all with my endorsement of a 6000 year old _weltanshauung_.)


----------



## Mallus

Tallifer said:


> Hrm... I play roleplaying games to escape politics, finances, sexual politics and other stressful topics.



Heh, I think I play roleplaying games to _ridicule_ them. This explains quite a bit of my old 3e homebrew.


----------



## shilsen

Ycore Rixle said:


> Shilsen, I think when you kept saying "evolutionary biology" in your recent post, you really meant "evolutionary psychology." Is that right? I suppose that technically the latter is a subset of the former, at least to my thinking, but I wouldn't think it would be to yours. Not sure.




Ah, crap! Thanks for the catch. I did mean "evolutionary psychology" every time. I'll edit my post. And no, I don't consider evolutionary psychology a subset of the former. 



ProfessorCirno said:


> I am *so* very much not going to touch the arguments in this thread now (I said my peace like ten trillion pages back, when the world was young, dinosaurs roamed the earth, and this thread was started) but there is a very sizable difference between evolutionary biology and evolutionary psychology, and yes, Shilsen is very much talking about the latter, not the former.  The former, you see, is an excepted and welcomed branch of science, while the latter...well, let's just say they have quite a few people who very *sharply* disagree with them and their claim to scientific analysis.  It is contentious, to say the least.




What he said. When I have more time, I'll post something focusing back on gaming - which we have taken another of our scheduled detours from


----------



## Mallus

Dannyalcatraz said:


> As rational & evolved human beings with an advanced culture, we can override, to some extent, these primal drives.  But despite our achievements, we're still primates.  Those basic animal drives- complete with ancient victory conditions- still exist as the underpinnings of our civilized minds.



I don't think anyone is arguing that not still primates . But we're primates express who our biological imperatives in quite a few different ways, which change over time, which makes it hard to say anything cogent about the the deterministic effects of our biology. Yes, we like to mate. Look at all the different ways we _do_, and the every-shifting framework of social acceptability that surrounds those acts...

edit: maybe we _should_ swing this back around to gaming...

Shil, so long as a particular campaign isn't hostile to stories about woman, does it matter that it mainly features stories about men? (I'm refraining from mentioning a Chris Rock comment about Woody Allen movies for fear of being a distraction)


----------



## Ycore Rixle

Mallus said:


> Shil, so long as a particular campaign isn't hostile to stories about woman, does it matter that it mainly features stories about men?




I know you directed this at Shilsen, but I figured I'd share my answer.

No, it doesn't matter. The same way it doesn't matter if my story mainly features stories about right-handed people. That's not the focus of the campaign. It's perfectly fine to have stories that don't make a point to include left-handed people. It's no slight against the left-handed that my campaign doesn't take time out to specifically plan for left-handed people to be in positions of power.

If anyone asks, it's enough to say that right-handed and left-handed people appear in the same proportions in the game as in real life. Just like, if anyone asks, it's appropriate to say that women and men appear in the same proportions in the game as in real life.

Caving in to pressure to play in a certain politically correct style is a defeat that can only hurt the game, just as it hurt D&D with 2nd edition when demons and devils were removed. The game, as an art form, should have what Keats called "negative capability." It should be art, without regard to political correctness.

In other words, it should be about dungeons and dragons.  Don't sweat it if you're not taking time out to bean count the number of men and women in the spotlights of your stories! (And if you don't trust my opinion on the matter, I again refer you to the philosophers, more eloquent than I am, that I listed above. They'll tell you the same thing only better!)


----------



## Ycore Rixle

shilsen said:


> What he said. When I have more time, I'll post something focusing back on gaming - which we have taken another of our scheduled detours from




This is what I mean by the topic changing. Not that I don't welcome the return to a gaming topic!

But I would really like to hear an answer to what I said earlier about your statement: "it's funny how biological arguments about behavior often fail to consider that people's actions are usually based on protecting their individual selves, not their species."

Repeating myself here: that's not what biological arguments do.

You seem to have made a massive mischaracterization of the opposite side of the argument, betraying profound ignorance of the theory you are arguing against.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Mallus said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that not still primates . But we're primates express who our biological imperatives in quite a few different ways, which change over time, which makes it hard to say anything cogent about the the deterministic effects of our biology.




To close my commentary on biology (absent being asked to explain myself further): I think the deterministic effects of our biology are fairly slight at any given point in time, but that over a given extended amount of time, they will be expressed.  You can't repress nature forever.  Reshape it?  Redirect it?  Sure.  Repress?  Not so much.

Or to use the previously proffered example, the young lady who wasn't going to pee "right now" _will_ do so eventually.

And the realities of biology have shaped legal systems in all kinds of ways- _important_ ways- in which one sex or the other is given a particular legal advantage.  For example, California law has a presumption that the man named the father on a birth certificate is liable for support of that child..._even if a subsequent paternity test proves he is not the father_.  (There are ways to overcome this presumption, but they are time consuming and expensive...and from what I understand, you're still liable for any support & penalties you were ordered to pay.  No refunds from the mother or state, either- he'd have to sue the actual father for recompense- meaning more legal fees.)

And now...back to gaming!



> so long as a particular campaign isn't hostile to stories about woman, does it matter that it mainly features stories about men?




I'd go so far as saying that even if the campaign world is hostile to women, as long as the GM has no bias against a given gender in PC generation.

By that I mean that it is perfectly acceptable to have a campaign in which the bulk of the adventures occur in a misogynistic land...as long as whatever females in the party are not penalized in char.gen for being female.  Otherwise, one could not have a campaign plotline in which the party is seeking to overthrow such a distasteful regime.


----------



## shilsen

Ycore Rixle said:


> Sigh. This thread is back again? I haven't been around for a while, but when I came back, I really wasn't hoping to see this thread.




Does it matter if people are discussing something in a thread which you aren't being forced to read or comment on?



> 1. Biology, including sexual biology, influences human thought, on average. That says nothing about any given individual.
> 
> 2. There are centuries of evidence to support Point 1. Shilsen and others dismiss this evidence for any number of spurious reasons.




To clarify, I don't argue that biology doesn't influence human thought. I'm simply arguing that the degree of its influence is highly debatable, and also that people can individually and as groups mediate the influence substantially. 



> 3. Sexism should be defined as making judgments based on sex, which isn't always a bad thing. Most of us are 100% sexist with regard to bathrooms, sports, dating, and clothing, for examples. That is not a bad thing, and no one should feel guilty for being sexist in this way.




Again, for what it's worth, that's not the definition of sexism I'm using, as I noted at the end of my first post on the thread. To quote:

"When I refer to sexism in general and in the game, I do not mean differences between the sexes or gender roles. What I mean by sexism is (stealing heavily from Merriam-Webster here) prejudice/discrimination based on sex, and esp. (with regard to this thread) behavior, conditions and attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex. An important element in my definition of sexism, again esp. where this thread is concerned, is the assumption that masculinity or male positions/attitudes are the norm."



Krensky said:


> I spent over an hour writing a post, but then I decided it was a waste of time.
> 
> As long as the other party believes that humans are the special little snow flakes of the animal kingdom and that we operate on completely different rules then every other animal there's no chance of any progress.




To be more precise, I'd argue that human beings, like every species in the animal kingdom, operate by their own set of rules, some of which overlap with some rules followed by some other animals. And one of those rules is that they have a far greater ability to mediate the effects of their biology on their individual lives and society than most animals. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> As rational & evolved human beings with an advanced culture, we can override, to some extent, these primal drives.  But despite our achievements, we're still primates.  Those basic animal drives- complete with ancient victory conditions- still exist as the underpinnings of our civilized minds.






Mallus said:


> I don't think anyone is arguing that not still primates . But we're primates express who our biological imperatives in quite a few different ways, which change over time, which makes it hard to say anything cogent about the the deterministic effects of our biology. Yes, we like to mate. Look at all the different ways we _do_, and the every-shifting framework of social acceptability that surrounds those acts...




What Mallus said.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> I dare say that while prostitution and promiscuity have never been more demonized than in countries steeped in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions (in any era), the number of societies in which  prostitution (either sex) and female promiscuity are considered normative, natural or otherwise respectable are exceedingly rare.




True. But their existence, I'd argue, indicates that there is nothing natural/intrinsic about traditional views of prostitution and promiscuity.



S'mon said:


> We can override them in the short term.  The problem is, groups & populations which override them may well* have lower fertility rates than those which do not.  With more or less free movement of populations, this leads to the replacement over time of the less fertile populations by more fertile populations.




Interesting point. Personally, I could do with a little less fertility on the planet.



> *The evidence from national fertility rates seems to indicate that the fully Shilsenised populations...




I am so going to have to steal that phraseology  



S'mon said:


> On the former point, can you give me an example of a society where "the existence of body dimorphism and the other factors you mentioned doesn't lead to a patriarchal society or sexism in general"?  I can think of societies which do not have a traditional-European-style patriarchal structure, but none without role differentiation by sex.  There have been occasional attempts to claim the existence of non-sexist traditional societies (eg M Mead's Coming of Age in Samoa), but these don't seem to have withstood critical scrutiny.  The modern Scandinavian societies seem closest to me, at least nominally and ideologically.




I think you're using sexism differently to me here (I mentioned my definition above). I think all societies have some role differentiation by sex (if nothing else, because women get pregnant and men don't), but patriarchy is another matter. If I recall correctly, societies like the Mosuo, Tuareg or Minangkabau are non-patriarchal.   



Mallus said:


> edit: maybe we _should_ swing this back around to gaming...
> 
> Shil, so long as a particular campaign isn't hostile to stories about woman, does it matter that it mainly features stories about men? (I'm refraining from mentioning a Chris Rock comment about Woody Allen movies for fear of being a distraction)




I'd say it doesn't matter, as long as it's a case of "mainly" as opposed to "(almost) exclusively". And especially so if the campaign doesn't (implicitly or explicitly) treat females as second-class citizens. Also, personally, I'd prefer it if there were actually in-game reasons why the stories are mainly about men. I'd say the same if the stories were mainly about elves or paladins too, but since women make up a slightly higher percentage of real-world societies and gamers than elves & paladins, I notice and emphasize the role of women a bit more. 

More broadly, I just prefer it if campaigns and groups don't tend to treat women as if they exist outside the club, in and out of game, since that tends to lead to keeping gaming a boy's club (or slowing down a movement away from that state, which I agree has been occurring gradually). Also, I'd ideally like to see gender, when used in a D&D game, used in a more self-aware and intelligent fashion than simply replicating real-world gender norms (it's a fantasy world after all, so there are all sorts of options for creative usage). 



Ycore Rixle said:


> If anyone asks, it's enough to say that right-handed and left-handed people appear in the same proportions in the game as in real life. Just like, if anyone asks, it's appropriate to say that women and men appear in the same proportions in the game as in real life.




Surprisingly, I'd agree about a lot of that, except to add that the game isn't real life, and it's worth keeping that in mind too.



> Caving in to pressure to play in a certain politically correct style is a defeat that can only hurt the game, just as it hurt D&D with 2nd edition when demons and devils were removed. The game, as an art form, should have what Keats called "negative capability." It should be art, without regard to political correctness.




Speaking as someone who actually thinks quite highly of the (potential) creativity in gaming, I am a little leery of overemphasizing D&D as an art form. It can be, but the vast majority of the time it isn't. But it always is a game. And when that game gets sexist or starts to exclude people I don't think I'd buy someone arguing that being less exclusionary corrupts the integrity of their art form.



Ycore Rixle said:


> This is what I mean by the topic changing. Not that I don't welcome the return to a gaming topic!




This is a 26 page discussion about a fairly contentious and broad subject on a gaming forum, not a dissertation. I think it would be surprising if the topic didn't change. People discuss what interests them at a given point, and that's about it. 



> But I would really like to hear an answer to what I said earlier about your statement: "it's funny how biological arguments about behavior often fail to consider that people's actions are usually based on protecting their individual selves, not their species."
> 
> Repeating myself here: that's not what biological arguments do.




Don't they? I only have a layman's knowledge of the subject, so I could very easily be wrong, but from what little I know a lot of the arguments seem to be focused on the future of the species. For example, the idea mentioned by Dannyalcatraz above about how primate males & females "win" is all about the species and their genetics winning and has barely anything to do with the individual primate.



> You seem to have made a massive mischaracterization of the opposite side of the argument, betraying profound ignorance of the theory you are arguing against.




Maybe. If so, I stand corrected. 



Dannyalcatraz said:


> To close my commentary on biology (absent being asked to explain myself further): I think the deterministic effects of our biology are fairly slight at any given point in time, but that over a given extended amount of time, they will be expressed.  You can't repress nature forever.  Reshape it?  Redirect it?  Sure.  Repress?  Not so much.
> 
> Or to use the previously proffered example, the young lady who wasn't going to pee "right now" _will_ do so eventually.






To use your terms, I'm all for the reshaping and redirecting, then.



> I'd go so far as saying that even if the campaign world is hostile to women, as long as the GM has no bias against a given gender in PC generation.




I'll agree with the caveat that a GM running a world where gender matters that much should definitely check that their players are all fine with it. But then you should always check with your players about the campaign anyway. I'll also add that a campaign world that is hostile to women might be a pain for female PCs (which doesn't necessarily mean female players, of course) in the long run, even if it may have seemed a good idea in the beginning. Personally, if one is going that route, I'd prefer a campaign world hostile to men, since that would require a little more creativity to create and run than a patriarchal and misogynistic world. 



> By that I mean that it is perfectly acceptable to have a campaign in which the bulk of the adventures occur in a misogynistic land...as long as whatever females in the party are not penalized in char.gen for being female.  Otherwise, one could not have a campaign plotline in which the party is seeking to overthrow such a distasteful regime.




See caveats above.


----------



## shilsen

And in the interests of keeping this focused on gaming, here's a question for everyone. Since the core D&D world includes a whole lot of intelligent races with huge (mechanical and flavor) variations, I'm interested to see what sort of gender norms people can come up with that might be plausible for their societies. I'd prefer it if you would consider the racial rules as applying not just to PCs but to all members of the society. So, for example, there is no statistical difference in strength or dexterity (or any other ability score) between males and females, all elves do not sleep and have a lifespan of multiple centuries, all dwarves are able to carry large loads, etc.  

What sort of social gender roles can you come up with for a human, or elven, or dwarven (and so on) society, and how do you explain it? I'll post a couple of ideas myself later.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

shilsen said:


> And in the interests of keeping this focused on gaming, here's a question for everyone. Since the core D&D world includes a whole lot of intelligent races with huge (mechanical and flavor) variations, I'm interested to see what sort of gender norms people can come up with that might be plausible for their societies. I'd prefer it if you would consider the racial rules as applying not just to PCs but to all members of the society. So, for example, there is no statistical difference in strength or dexterity (or any other ability score) between males and females, all elves do not sleep and have a lifespan of multiple centuries, all dwarves are able to carry large loads, etc.
> 
> What sort of social gender roles can you come up with for a human, or elven, or dwarven (and so on) society, and how do you explain it? I'll post a couple of ideas myself later.




My favorite one to do is make lizardkin where the females are large, muscular, and have dull colored scales, while the men are smaller and have very garish and brightly colored scales - why, the better to attract mates with, of course ;p.

I find it amusing that the set assumption for pretty much all races is that the women try to attract the men, so reversing that tends to lead to some rather interesting changes, since that's one of the more subtle details that people tend not to think about.


----------



## Ariosto

> Personally, I could do with a little less fertility on the planet.



It's not a question of whether there's less reproduction in total, but more in proportion of which populations of phenomena. Culture tends to get passed on to a significant extent from the same source as genes.

Of course, ideas also get passed around among cultures, and sometimes one brings others in its wake. Both ideas and people are in movement around the globe.



> For example, the idea mentioned by Dannyalcatraz above about how primate males & females "win" is all about the species and their genetics winning and has barely anything to do with the individual primate.



The individual primate is an ephemeral thing.

_I met a traveller from an antique land     
    Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone     
    Stand in the desert…. Near them, on the sand,     
    Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,     
    And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,     
    Tell that its sculptor well those passions read     
    Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,     
    The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:     
    And on the pedestal these words appear:     
    'My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:     
    Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!'
    Nothing beside remains. Round the decay     
    Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare     
    The lone and level sands stretch far away.     _

What benefits a single grain of sand?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Since the core D&D world includes a whole lot of intelligent races with huge (mechanical and flavor) variations, I'm interested to see what sort of gender norms people can come up with that might be plausible for their societies.
> _<snip>_
> What sort of social gender roles can you come up with for a human, or elven, or dwarven (and so on) society, and how do you explain it? I'll post a couple of ideas myself later.




Even though RPGs generally eliminate sexual dimorphism, by and large, I still model my societies either to mimic or counter known human cultures.

Sometimes I have a little fun with it, like I did when helping rogueboy in this thread:
http://www.enworld.org/forum/plots-places/256063-what-would-society-look-like.html
Now, it wasn't my campaign, but I could see making the women the preferred Moa-riders for certain roles- like long-range scout, where their lesser mass means the mount has either less to carry or the rider could pack on more resources.

Or I'll apply modern tropes to certain societies.  In a culture where the most common ranged weapon is a X-Bow (reducing the need for upper-body strength), women with their steadier hands (ask the Israeli military & Dr. Ruth) may predominate the role of snipers/hunters.



> My favorite one to do is make lizardkin where the females are large, muscular, and have dull colored scales, while the men are smaller and have very garish and brightly colored scales




Like your lizardkin, the Tyraxids (my homebrewed draconic descendants in one campaign) had larger, stronger females who embodied all of the physical archetypes of their draconic forebears...while the smaller males concentrated more on magic.

OTOH, males in my as yet un-named anthro-Alligator Snapping Turtle race are just slightly larger...just like their RW counterparts.

And another common homebrew thing I do is have asexual Dwarves- either because they're native quasi-elementals carved from stone (like scaled-down Stonechildren) or the Inheritors: pseudo-Cybermen who are a fusion of Warforged bodies with transplanted Dwarven brains that retain Dwarf culture.



> What benefits a single grain of sand?




Getting between an oyster or other mollusk and its shell, to be transformed into a pearl.


----------



## S'mon

shilsen said:


> Interesting point. Personally, I could do with a little less fertility on the planet.




Fertility rates are declining in most parts of the planet, with sub-Saharan Africa a partial exception.  However modern medicine, increased food production, and the free movement of peoples militate against this (indeed emigrant populations often have much higher fertility than in the country they emigrated from*).  Without isolating populations, groups who reduce their fertility get replaced by groups which don't - evolution by natural selection, the higher-fertility populations are 'fitter'.  With restricted movement, you can reduce fertility without population replacement, leading to absolute population decline, as is happening in Japan.

*Historically this occurred with eg English emigrants to America and Australia.  It's happening now with eg Mexican emigrants to America and Tunisian emigrants to France.

Edit: Differential fertility has been a theme in traditional Tolkienesque fantasy, with low-fertility elves and dwarves vs high-fertility orcs and goblins - not applicable to Peter Jackson's vat-grown orcs, though!   - and humans in-between.


----------



## Ariosto

> Getting between an oyster or other mollusk and its shell, to be transformed into a pearl.



In itself, that selects for pearls rather than for grains of sand. (My attempt being to suggest to Shilsen the factors under consideration in the earlier analysis with which he took issue.)


----------



## Ariosto

On biology and trends in promiscuity:

It is a plain physical fact that a woman's reproductive capacity is more sharply limited than a man's; a population's baby-making potential directly correlates to number of females but not to number of males. Indeed, most men are strictly speaking superfluous to that sexual requirement; and women more or less treat them so.

The "more" is more practically relevant at the age in which people of both sexes tend to be half-mad with hormones. Reliable contraception tends if anything to increase the commerce among a small demographic of "alpha" males and the female population at large, because the means is more immediately attractive than the end in furtherance of which it evolved. Desire outlives necessity, just as some hungers for food, other goods, or simply the token of money drive some people to consume far beyond actual need or even to the detriment of health.

Even in "less" mode, the distinction in instinct for quality or quantity is not terribly obscure. Simple female-ness exerts a strong attraction generally on the heterosexual male libido, relative to the more qualified and discriminating female appraisal of males. A guy seems to become "cuter" when he is before the eyes of many gals thanks to mass media that also send a lot of wealth and social status his way. If Pin-up Boy really is just the no-account boy next door, then he probably needs the sort of physical assets that would have been of more practical significance in the Stone Age.

Someone who does not directly reproduce can still contribute to the "fitness" of a heritage shared with siblings and cousins. For obvious reasons, that is fairly often the sphere of homosexuals. If they lack offspring of their own, they may by so much add to the resources per capita devoted to their nieces and nephews. Likewise, the "expendable" male may give exceptional service in deeds demanding an unusual measure of altruism, such as those often occasioned by war or natural disaster.


----------



## S'mon

Ariosto said:


> a population's baby-making potential directly correlates to number of females but not to number of males. Indeed, most men are strictly speaking superfluous to that sexual requirement; and women more or less treat them so.




Although monogamous pair-bonding may increase the survival chances of offspring, especially in high latitudes where male & female must work together to gather enough food for the winter.  Nature affects nurture.  

Edit: It's a bit ironic that the Welfare systems of Shilsenised societies, which allow for greater sex equality, reduce the incentives for monogamous pair-bonding and thus incentivise the promiscuous male.  If the State will be father for his many offspring, he doesn't need to.


----------



## Ariosto

S'mon, the greater sex equality can make more effective use of the most productive capital of all -- the mind -- and thus increase wealth so that such arrangements are competitive. The problem always present is that of _loving well_, and politico-economic "magic bullets" put the cart before the horse.


----------



## esparkhu

shilsen said:


> ...Somehow, the number of powerful and important female NPCs in the setting is about a tenth of the powerful and important male NPCs, even though there is no logical or inherent reason why that should be the case. The result – it seems like a setting about and for men, even though it’s certainly not intended that way.





Thanks for bringing up this topic. It reminded me to make sure I have equal opportunity villains and sovereigns. I agree that the default bad guys and good guys are almost always that - guys.


----------



## Mallus

Ycore Rixle said:


> Caving in to pressure to play in a certain politically correct style is a defeat that can only hurt the game, just as it hurt D&D with 2nd edition when demons and devils were removed.  The game, as an art form, should have what Keats called "negative capability." It should be art, without regard to political correctness.



Two things... 

You're framing this as a conflict between artistic integrity on the one hand and the chilling effect of politicized speech on the other. That wasn't the case. I didn't have any grand artistic vision w/r/t gender roles in mind while working on the setting. I simply wrote more male NPC's than female, and then placed them in positions of power and/or narrative import. Frankly, I was a little surprised when shil pointed that out, but he wasn't wrong. Let me assure you, negative capability had nothing to do with it. It was an example of sexism by oversight, through unconcious default assumptions about societal, or, in this case, fictional societal roles.

(now I did write a _few_ major female NPC's, one which is explicitly meant to comment on sex/gender issues, but the group hasn't met her yet... we'll see what they think about her in a month of so when I take over the DM's reins)

As for the whole 2e 'demon-devil' thing... that wasn't 'political correctness', that was a marketing decision made to head off any potential problems with a segment of the market. It was more akin to the re-naming "Super Sugar Crisps" to "Super Golden Crisps" as advertisers realized boasting about how much sugar your children's breakfast cereal contained wasn't going to go over so well with the buying public anymore.

And as for the phrase 'political correctness' itself... can we retire it? Please? it's really just an empty partisan slur, lacking the zing of a real top-tier partisan slur, say like Gore Vidal's classic 'crypto-fascist'. Now that was a slur with pizazz! 

(make that three things...) 



> Don't sweat it if you're not taking time out to bean count the number of men and women in the spotlights of your stories!



But it's nice to know what assumptions your writing carries. Trust me, I wrote co-wrote the setting shilsen was talking about.


----------



## S'mon

Mallus said:


> And as for the phrase 'political correctness' itself... can we retire it? Please? it's really just an empty partisan slur...




I prefer 'cultural Marxism', personally.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> As for the whole 2e 'demon-devil' thing... that wasn't 'political correctness', that was a marketing decision made to head off any potential problems with a segment of the market.




Or more accurately, the family and associates of a segment of the market.

I'm a practicing Catholic, and not only did I not have a problem fighting demons & devils, neither did any of my contemporaries...or even the priests at my private Catholic school.

My Mom briefly did (then I explained what I was doing), and "religious butterfly" godmother did, as did my born-again art teacher (Roberto Munguia), but the priests let me establish an RPG Club.


----------



## shilsen

ProfessorCirno said:


> My favorite one to do is make lizardkin where the females are large, muscular, and have dull colored scales, while the men are smaller and have very garish and brightly colored scales - why, the better to attract mates with, of course ;p.
> 
> I find it amusing that the set assumption for pretty much all races is that the women try to attract the men, so reversing that tends to lead to some rather interesting changes, since that's one of the more subtle details that people tend not to think about.




Nice one. It's always fun, for me, to take pre-existing presumptions that a lot of humans (esp. players at the table) share and tweak them somewhat in the fantasy world. 



Ariosto said:


> The individual primate is an ephemeral thing.




So is the individual species of primates. 



> What benefits a single grain of sand?




Who cares? I'm a lot more interested in what benefits a single human being. Especially since I get to game with individual human beings, not the species, and doing so in an intelligent, creative, egalitarian and fun manner seems to benefit us.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Like your lizardkin, the Tyraxids (my homebrewed draconic descendants in one campaign) had larger, stronger females who embodied all of the physical archetypes of their draconic forebears...while the smaller males concentrated more on magic.




That's a trope I've seen fairly often, and a pretty easy one to justify in the game world. Though, of course, one could do the converse by having a species find the use of magic so tiring that only the strongest and most durable could use it, while smaller/weaker individuals had to make do with more physical means.



> OTOH, males in my as yet un-named anthro-Alligator Snapping Turtle race are just slightly larger...just like their RW counterparts.




Anthro-Alligator Snapping Turtle? That's beautiful  



> And another common homebrew thing I do is have asexual Dwarves- either because they're native quasi-elementals carved from stone (like scaled-down Stonechildren) or the Inheritors: pseudo-Cybermen who are a fusion of Warforged bodies with transplanted Dwarven brains that retain Dwarf culture.




Interesting. I find relatively less-sexual or asexual dwarves to be pretty common in fantasy settings, homebrew or otherwise. I've never been quite sure why, though I have a couple of vague theories.



S'mon said:


> Fertility rates are declining in most parts of the planet, with sub-Saharan Africa a partial exception.




Yup. I wonder when/if that's going to plateau out. Considering all the other factors in play, I doubt the human population is in any danger from diminished fertility.



Ariosto said:


> In itself, that selects for pearls rather than for grains of sand. (My attempt being to suggest to Shilsen the factors under consideration in the earlier analysis with which he took issue.)




Unfortunately, I found that post too vague for me to get what you meant. Especially since the metaphor was way too strained to be of any use when discussing human individuals and groups, IMNSHO.



S'mon said:


> Edit: It's a bit ironic that the Welfare systems of Shilsenised societies, which allow for greater sex equality, reduce the incentives for monogamous pair-bonding and thus incentivise the promiscuous male.  If the State will be father for his many offspring, he doesn't need to.




We just need to find a way for babies to be grown in vats and then neither gender will have to worry about the lack of (or disparity in) promiscuity in men and women 



esparkhu said:


> [/COLOR]
> 
> Thanks for bringing up this topic. It reminded me to make sure I have equal opportunity villains and sovereigns. I agree that the default bad guys and good guys are almost always that - guys.




Glad to help.



Mallus said:


> Two things...
> 
> You're framing this as a conflict between artistic integrity on the one hand and the chilling effect of politicized speech on the other. That wasn't the case.




True, but it's a damn good ploy to use. "Help, help - my freedom of speech is being trampled upon," is also often code for "Help, help - someone is calling me out on the fact that I'm sexist or racist or otherwise offensive in some way". 

Or maybe I'm just a cynic 



> (now I did write a _few_ major female NPC's, one which is explicitly meant to comment on sex/gender issues, but the group hasn't met her yet... we'll see what they think about her in a month of so when I take over the DM's reins)




I'm looking forward to it, and to you DMing in general. With the urban fantasy M&M game in the offing and getting started on the new semester's teaching, I think I won't be running the Port for a while.



> And as for the phrase 'political correctness' itself... can we retire it? Please?




Seconded. Like what I mentioned above, I think it's a popular form of code too, for "Speech that I don't like to hear."



> it's really just an empty partisan slur, lacking the zing of a real top-tier partisan slur, say like Gore Vidal's classic 'crypto-fascist'. Now that was a slur with pizazz!




I'd heard the phrase before but didn't know it was Vidal. Good to know. And yes, that is pretty good.

And back to more direct gaming stuff again, here are a few simple ideas I had for gender based on fantasy races, some of which I've used and some of which I haven't:

Elves - With elves having a huge lifespan and comparatively early maturity (esp. in 4e) as well as a low reproductive cycle, most elven males and females have any children that they do (normally one or two) early in life. Since the time spent on looking after children is a very small part of their life, elven parents of both sexes tend to focus almost exclusively on their offspring until the latter reach maturity. Then they go about their own lives. A result of this situation is that there's complete parity between the sexes in elven society, since both men and women have equal time and opportunity to achieve whatever they set out to do. This also means romantic and sexual relationships are as commonly (if not more) between individuals of the same gender as not, since most elves will have multiple romantic/sexual relationships in their lifetimes, only one of which is intended for breeding.

Dwarves - Dwarven men and women  have the same capacity for hard labor and general strength/sturdiness, so they can generally fulfill all the same roles in society. More interestingly, the genders look exactly the same (stealing from Tolkien and Pratchett here), not only to outsiders but to dwarves themselves. The issue is exacerbated in most dwarven kingdoms, where men and women dress exactly the same way, drawing little attention to either their gender or garb. Except at one time, namely when they are specifically courting or looking to wed. A male dwarf seeking a bride will wear particular clothing (usually brighter and less functional than normal) to indicate this fact, as will a female dwarf seeking a husband. The clothing is designed to indicate the individual dwarf's gender and status. Interestingly, such clothing will never be used after the wedding, with both husband and wife returning to more functional clothing. In fact, dwarves don't really have terms for husband and wife, preferring to reference the individual's clan and occupation instead. Non-dwarves sometimes assume that the rare, brighter garbed dwarves are all female, which can lead to some (usually amusing) misunderstandings.

Changelings - Changelings have no natural gender and are able to change fluidly between the sexes in a moment. In fact, they can just as easily be hermaphrodite or completely lack any gender (as they do in their natural form). Hence, the conception of gender/sex is a very fluid one between changelings. Changelings do usually impersonate a male or female form when interacting with other races and use the appropriate terms for the chosen sex when wearing it. All changelings are capable of reproduction, simply needing to take on a female form and remain in it throughout the space of the pregnancy and birth. While changing shape during pregnancy is possible, it is undesirable since it puts the unborn child in danger. Hence it is also a very effective method of abortion in the case of undesired pregnancy.

Warforged - Warforged have no sex/gender and have some trouble understanding the concept or why it seems important to humans. For communication purposes they tend to use the words "he/she, her/his", etc. But this has little meaning other than identification, since warforged personalities tend to include both conventionally masculine and feminine traits. Of course, as the odd warforged has pointed out, so too do human personalities. Warforged who are particularly interested in fitting into human society will sometimes try to dress and act in stereotypically masculine or feminine ways, usually with poor results.


----------



## Cadfan

S'mon said:


> I prefer 'cultural Marxism', personally.



My favorite is "relativism."  I recently read someone who is supposedly an intellectual and a editorialist refer to Kant as a "relativist."  Yeah, that Kant.


----------



## Ariosto

> I'm a lot more interested in what benefits a single human being.



If that's a flippant rationale for determined ignorance, then I can only offer that I have found as a rule such bull-headedness helpful to no one.

                             "Personally, I could do with a little less fertility on the planet," when concerned only with biological reproduction of the human species, is a myopic view applicable to the fecundity of many other things that make more graves than babies and that might from a moral -- or even a purely selfish, "I've got mine, Jack" -- perspective be most undesirable.

As a general principle, understanding how the world changes is an asset for those who would change it in one direction rather than another.


----------



## Set

shilsen said:


> I'm interested to see what sort of gender norms people can come up with that might be plausible for their societies. I'd prefer it if you would consider the racial rules as applying not just to PCs but to all members of the society. So, for example, there is no statistical difference in strength or dexterity (or any other ability score) between males and females, all elves do not sleep and have a lifespan of multiple centuries, all dwarves are able to carry large loads, etc.
> 
> What sort of social gender roles can you come up with for a human, or elven, or dwarven (and so on) society, and how do you explain it? I'll post a couple of ideas myself later.




Elves;
Elven write-ups very commonly mention low birthrates and declining populations (particularly in the face of much faster-breeding races) as being very real problems.  And yet, the traditional elven god of archery, Solonor Thelandira, is male.  The only god of swordsmanship, or in any way associated with the elven 'blade-dancers,' is the Realms Eilistraee, is female, and is worshipped by women whom Ed Greenwood describes as go into battle wielding bastard swords and 'naked, save for their hair.'

If *my* race was in danger of extinction, had horribly low birth-rates, etc. I'd want the elven god of archery to be a chick, and the elven god of running into battle nekkid with a big sword and getting yourself killed be a dude.  I even wrote that into my Realms setting, setting up Solona and Eilistraen as sister and brother, who, squabbling endlessly, so pissed off Correlon that he cursed them to 'spend a time walking in the other's shoes,' so that the goddess of archery became a boy, and the god of swordsmanship became a girl.  Then the whole Arashaulnee thing happened, and Lolth got custody of Eilstraee and Correllon got Solonor and the house in Elysium.


Dwarves;
Dwarven depictions are almost unrelentingly male.  Parties of thirteen male dwarves decide to go out on a mission, and what do they decide would balance the party?  A Halfling.  Or possibly a pretty _human_ girl named Snow White.  For all the female dwarves portrayed in the genre, the entire dwarven race could be gay hermaphrodites, or reproduce by fission, or craft each other out of rock, for all one can see.

Given this 'out of sight, out of mind' portrayal of female dwarves, one could assume one or more of the following;

1) Dwarves gender roles are rigid, and female dwarves stay at home and run the business, home and / or family.

2) There are more male dwarves than female dwarves, and like unwanted young males of polygamous societies, young male dwarves are booted out of the dwarven kingdoms, so that the older (or better socially connected) men don't have to share the limited pool of potential wives.

3) Women have all the power in dwarven social relationships, and a male dwarf has to prove himself worthy of her hand in marriage, quite often done by going adventuring, accumulating millions of gold piece, crafting some Epic spells, and coming back to dwarf-home two years later with a pair of gold dragon cohorts.  To find out she married the head of the smithy's guilds good-for-nothing Aristocrat 2 nephew.  Life is funny that way.

4) Women have all of the political / financial power instead (or also).  Women own property and businesses.  Men only get to work there or live there, at a woman's sufferance, and the matron is quite prone to sending men who aren't 'pulling their weight' off on missions to ostensibly further the goals of the family / business, but also get them out of the house.

5) Dwarves are like Ferengi and keep their women nekkid and at home.  Obviously, I don't care for that option, but the relative scarcity of dwarven females in the literature makes that option as likely as any other.


Gnomes;
Precipitously see-sawing between obsessive and flighty, I haven't seen any indication that gnomish males and gnomish females are in any way different.  Both would be just as likely to get lost for a week in a library, reading book and finally passing out from hunger, face planted in a *fascinating* tome on the botonical uses of foxglove.  Both would be equally as likely to fail to notice that the gnome they are arguing vociferously with over a difference of opinion that nobody else in a fifty mile radius even understands, let alone would care about, is a totally HAWT member of the opposite sex.

They must go into pon farr or something, or else there would never be little gnomes.


Halflings;
Depends, are we talking the sedentary home-body 'nasty hobbitses' or the pseudo-kender wandering pickpockets of 3.X?  Gender roles would seem irrelevant to the gypsy types, and more typically human among the farm-folk with last names like Hornblowers and Boffins and Sockpuppets.


----------



## shilsen

Ariosto said:


> If that's a flippant rationale for determined ignorance, then I can only offer that I have found as a rule such bull-headedness helpful to no one.




Nah, that's just a flippant response to what I thought was a meaningless metaphor. Just because someone doesn't think your phrasing is effective doesn't mean they are determinedly ignorant. Though I'm sure thinking so helps 



> "Personally, I could do with a little less fertility on the planet," when concerned only with biological reproduction of the human species, is a myopic view applicable to the fecundity of many other things that make more graves than babies and that might from a moral -- or even a purely selfish, "I've got mine, Jack" -- perspective be most undesirable.




Damn. That's why I have a hard time responding to a post of yours. I'm an academic and used to (though not a fan of) academic verbiage, but your phrasing tends to leave me uncertain what you're referring to.



> As a general principle, understanding how the world changes is an asset for those who would change it in one direction rather than another.




Sure. But people can reasonably disagree about how the world changes.


----------



## Ariosto

Okay, academic. A circumspection that only leaves communication as clear as mud is hardly a virtue.

Unchecked, an army in the service of an ideological empire kills all who will not serve it. That might greatly reduce the total population of a continent or three; but who is left alive, and what ideas?

That is the very profound and powerful fact of nature at which you seemed to scoff. You were not required to say anything if you had nothing serious to say. Yet you pretended to have a serious argument -- and then fell back on mockery when your bluff (taken seriously and with respect) was called.

The cavalier attitude rubs me very much the wrong way, and I cannot help but let some passion creep into my response to it. (That does not mean that I will abandon reason, though; nothing so greases the rails to error as a sense of self-righteousness!)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Anthro-Alligator Snapping Turtle? That's beautiful




Thanks!  I came up with them when someone was complaining about Halflings as "riverfolk."

Mechanically, I kind of melded Lizardmen with Dwarves.  In terms of fluff, they were gruff but stalwart (like Dwarves) but fought with extreme rage (Orcish traits).  Like Vikings and the Halflings that inspired them, they spent the bulk of their lives on the water and were formidable traders.

Things I've done with other races:

Elves:

In one campaign, they were hermaphroditic Grays whose scientific survey ship had crash landed on a world where magic worked, and the crash itself resulted in the ship being buried.  (S3 Barrier Peaks, anyone?)  Their tech was advanced enough for them to generate a huge slow-time/stasis field which let them wait for rescue.  They had devices to help them somewhat resemble the other sentient races of the world.  Thus, common legendary tropes about Elves applied to them- time passed more slowly in "Underhill," so those who ventured within it often came back decades later; they lack some of the empathy we take for granted, and often did experiments & tricks upon the unsuspecting, either for research or to relieve boredom; they control unusual magic; their alien biology reacted poorly with certain forms of iron and silver.  And so forth.

In another campaign, Elves were replaced by 3 kinds of Fey- actually Elves who had recaptured their original nature in order to survive an "extinction level event."  One kind were actually sentient plants with lifespans in the 10K+ year range.  One kind embraced Shadow- think a melding of Drow & Shadar-Ki and you're on the right track- and were virtually invisible in darkness.  The third kind seemed to be connected in some way to the stars, with a natural radiance and the ability to manipulate light.


----------



## shilsen

Ariosto said:


> Okay, academic. A circumspection that only leaves communication as clear as mud is hardly a virtue.
> 
> Unchecked, an army in the service of an ideological empire kills all who will not serve it. That might greatly reduce the total population of a continent or three; but who is left alive, and what ideas?
> 
> That is the very profound and powerful fact of nature at which you seemed to scoff.
> 
> The cavalier attitude rubs me very much the wrong way, and I cannot help but let some passion creep into my response to it. (That does not mean that I will abandon reason, though; nothing so greases the rails to error as a sense of self-righteousness!)



As I mentioned before, I don't get what you're trying to say. And I don't mean your attitude or anything else, but simply your language. I recognize the words, but the combinations don't make sense to me. Damn you for giving me flashbacks to the freshman composition papers I've graded 

In short, if I don't respond to future posts of yours, it's not because I disagree or have a problem with what you're saying. I just find it near impossible to decipher them.


----------



## Ariosto

Sorry, Shilsen!

I think I have been less than earnest in my efforts at explaining because I have been incredulous that you really did not grasp how it goes when thing A, even if multiplying, is not multiplying as rapidly as thing B.

If indeed it interests you to find out, then you can try it out.


----------



## Ariosto

Suppose I come upon the text _The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog that had diabetes_ ... No. That's liable to be too confusing.

Suppose I'm a worried parent and I come across the text _Playing a game called "Dungeons & Dragons" induced Dallas Egbert III to commit suicide._ My personal interest is in stopping the spread of this evil influence, so I join the crusade to spread the warning.

The rest is history to millions of D&D fans who might not ever have heard of the game otherwise.


----------



## Ariosto

Suppose I have a good living that depends on hunting a few hundred acres of forest. Then boats start unloading hungry-eyed people accustomed to considering themselves lucky to be as far from starving as a potato patch, barely long enough for a coffin, may in some years keep them.

Anticipating fewer miles of forest, I plan to have fewer children.

What becomes of my culture?


----------



## Ariosto

Suppose that even a foster home is preferable to the State School for Getting Buggered. If someone tries to escape and someone else catches him or gives him away, then the snitch gets time off for good behavior. The older and bigger kids have a good line in making the little ones so miserable they run. What do you think I'm up to when I offer a deal to run and get caught in return for a little payoff behind the walls?

What do I think I'm up to? 

Is the result for the other guy, me, or the rest of the kids a more human kind of situation? Or is it just more damage to pass on to our kids?


----------



## ProfessorCirno

...What.

Also, why on earth did that take three posts.


----------



## S'mon

Ariosto said:


> Suppose I have a good living that depends on hunting a few hundred acres of forest. Then boats start unloading hungry-eyed people accustomed to considering themselves lucky to be as far from starving as a potato patch, barely long enough for a coffin, may in some years keep them.
> 
> Anticipating fewer miles of forest, I plan to have fewer children.
> 
> What becomes of my culture?




Your indigeous Amerindian tribes get replaced by the Anglo-Celtic settlers even quicker.  

Funnily enough, this has happened in reverse with squirrels.  When the British Red Squirrel comes into contact with the larger American Grey, it stops reproducing.  This has led to rapid replacement of the natives by the foreigners throughout the British Isles.

Like I said, limiting fertility only works if you can limit population movement, eg Japan with its nearly sealed border.  Otherwise the most fertility-limiting populations are simply replaced by more fertile ones.  If the reaction of the less fertile population to stress caused by high population density is to further reduce fertility, then replacement occurs even more rapidly.  Natural selection is a b*tch.  

Edit:  BTW that was the only post of Ariosto's I had any idea what he was saying.  But I think maybe he should go on over to join us at http://isteve.blogspot.com/ and give it a rest here.


----------



## shilsen

ProfessorCirno said:


> ...What.




My response exactly. I seriously don't get what he's trying to say most of the time, and I doubt it's because my reading comprehension skills have atrophied. So, as I said before, I'm just ignoring Ariosto's posts from now on. I may read them, but I'll have to do so quickly and avoid replying, since what he does to clauses and sentence formation makes baby proofreaders cry.



> Also, why on earth did that take three posts.


----------



## Dausuul

S'mon said:


> Like I said, limiting fertility only works if you can limit population movement, eg Japan with its nearly sealed border.  Otherwise the most fertility-limiting populations are simply replaced by more fertile ones.  If the reaction of the less fertile population to stress caused by high population density is to further reduce fertility, then replacement occurs even more rapidly.  Natural selection is a b*tch.




However, this assumes that the migrant population remains fertile in its new territory. It also assumes the migrants do not lose population - through death or other means - just as fast as they gain it.

In human terms, if an immigrant population has a high birth rate, but 90% of its offspring assimilate into the slower-breeding native culture, it isn't going to displace that native culture (although it may eventually come to dominate the gene pool).


----------



## Mallus

ProfessorCirno said:


> Also, why on earth did that take three posts.



Inefficient use of language? Questionable instincts for metaphor?

Anyhow shil... so far you've focused on representation, let's talk about characterization. What if a male DM creates plenty of female NPC's, but they all seem like men in drag? --this is common problem in adventure stories since adventure stories tend to showcase certain stereotypically male behaviors, such as the 'hitting first and discussing later, if at all'. 

(note that I tend to include characters in various kinds drag in my D&D campaigns... that can't be accidental, can it?). 

Is it enough to include female characters? Don't we have to write them well, too? At least 'well enough'? And what does 'well enough' look like -- one example would be Kara Thrace from nBSG, but I'm hesitant to try and explain _how_ that character works... she kinda shouldn't. 

(this could explain why create more male characters --it's not that I so confident in my ability to write them, but I'm less concerned about writing men as painful caricatures -- in fact, one might argue that's one of my _goals_...).


----------



## Dausuul

Mallus said:


> Inefficient use of language? Questionable instincts for metaphor?
> 
> Anyhow shil... so far you've focused on representation, let's talk about characterization. What if a male DM creates plenty of female NPC's, but they all seem like men in drag? --this is common problem in adventure stories since adventure stories tend to showcase certain stereotypically male behaviors, such as the 'hitting first and discussing later, if at all'.




I think people worry about this more than they should. Having female characters behave exactly like male characters can mean ignoring certain nuances of male/female relations, but overall it's not a big deal. Certainly it beats hell out of female NPCs (or PCs) as obnoxious stereotypes or adolescent sex fantasies.


----------



## Mallus

Dausuul said:


> I think people worry about this more than they should.



Oh, I'm not worried at all. I'm interested, as I assume shilsen is since he brought it up...


----------



## S'mon

Dausuul said:


> However, this assumes that the migrant population remains fertile in its new territory. It also assumes the migrants do not lose population - through death or other means - just as fast as they gain it.
> 
> In human terms, if an immigrant population has a high birth rate, but 90% of its offspring assimilate into the slower-breeding native culture, it isn't going to displace that native culture (although it may eventually come to dominate the gene pool).




All true, and several recent immigrant populations here in the UK have followed this path, assimilating into the host culture over time.


----------



## shilsen

Mallus said:


> Inefficient use of language? Questionable instincts for metaphor?








> Anyhow shil... so far you've focused on representation, let's talk about characterization. What if a male DM creates plenty of female NPC's, but they all seem like men in drag? --this is common problem in adventure stories since adventure stories tend to showcase certain stereotypically male behaviors, such as the 'hitting first and discussing later, if at all'.




Good question. It's something I've considered earlier, but I figured I'd consider it for a bit so I didn't respond immediately when I saw your post yesterday (yesterday in India, that is).



> (note that I tend to include characters in various kinds drag in my D&D campaigns... that can't be accidental, can it?).




Really? I thought it was utterly, purely coincidental. Really 



> Is it enough to include female characters? Don't we have to write them well, too? At least 'well enough'?And what does 'well enough' look like -- one example would be Kara Thrace from nBSG, but I'm hesitant to try and explain _how_ that character works... she kinda shouldn't.
> 
> (this could explain why create more male characters --it's not that I so confident in my ability to write them, but I'm less concerned about writing men as painful caricatures -- in fact, one might argue that's one of my _goals_...).




My thought on it is that writing female characters well would be a definite bonus, but that's not something which I think of as a necessity. I should add that I think the same for male characters as well. Most people don't write/roleplay characters better than adequately, and I think that's okay. I've seen lots of men roleplay men poorly (i.e. using stereotypes and not very creatively), just as I've seen women roleplay women poorly. So I'd emphasize representation first, with good characterization being a second (and preferable, but not required) element. After all, if you don't have representation you can't have characterization at all, and if you have a good deal of representation then you have a better chance of achieving at least some good characterization.

Which brings me to the question of what good characterization means - and I'll use your example of Kara Thrace and BSG in general, which is my personal high point among TV shows for good female characterization. And I think it also provides a good example of the advantages of representation. Kara Thrace, I think, would be an example of lousy characterization if she appeared in, say, the new Star Trek movie. Why? Because she would be the only major female character there and would stick out as a woman who's written using mostly conventionally masculine traits (and raise the question of whether the writer(s) can write a woman differently than they can write men). But in BSG she works, since she's not the only major female character. You also have Laura Roslin, multiple characters played by Grace Park, Dualla, multiple characters played by Tricia Helfer, Cally, multiple characters played by Lucy Lawless, etc. And lots of minor female characters. Even if these characters were not well-written and well-acted, as most are, their very presence and the fact that they differ from each other would make Kara Thrace acceptable, since "she who has masculine traits" becomes only one among an entire gamut of female characters. This works with both genders, of course. Saul Tigh is largely a stereotype. But he works since he's not the only man on the show. Characterization works very well on BSG, but representation is a hugely important factor therein.

As an addendum, I'll add something about how I think writing a character well can work, as done by BSG. Give the character motivation(s), strength(s), weakness(es), and don't worry about whether these are stereotypically masculine or feminine. And then consider a couple of places where the character's gender might affect things, and add it in. Voila! The majority of BSG's characters could work just fine if you changed their sex. I could totally buy Kara as male, Adama (either of them) as female, Helo as female, Roslin as male, etc. And that actually makes them better and more interesting characters, in my estimation, since they are all mediated somewhat by their gender but not defined by it. 

In short, I think more equitable representation is a necessary first step and not only enables but is absolutely necessary for good characterization (which is a bonus, but not as important). 



Dausuul said:


> I think people worry about this more than they should. Having female characters behave exactly like male characters can mean ignoring certain nuances of male/female relations, but overall it's not a big deal. Certainly it beats hell out of female NPCs (or PCs) as obnoxious stereotypes or adolescent sex fantasies.




Agreed. I have, unsurprisingly, certain issues with people writing females (or males, for that matter) as "obnoxious stereotypes or adolescent sex fantasies", but as long as one avoids that I'm not going to fault someone running a D&D campaign or a PC for not writing a character as a compelling and well-rounded example of their gender.


----------



## Proserpine

Adding on to what shilsen mentioned about characterization, a trap that many male-dominated creative and collaborative efforts (like TV, film, video games, home-brewed campaigns, select table-top RPG material itself) fall into is not treating female characters as human beings first. It's not necessarily an intentional thing, but it's definitely problematic and leads to sexist/misogynistic scenarios. Character motivations, for example, tend to be highly gendered - writers often put an incrediblely strong emphasis on female characters' interest in children, family, and romance, making it a primary concern. But for the average person, male or female, these things are often secondary. I, a female, would love to be married one day (though I couldn't care less about my existing family or having babies). But my primary motivations in life are to get a Ph.D., get published, and travel. It's something I share in common with plenty of other human beings, whether they have ladyparts or boybits. I haaaaate that when females aren't presented as attention-craving, baby wanting harpies, they're either sexualized (i.e. the recent GI Joe movie), or thought of as being "manly".

Which brings me to the men-in-drag thing. Sort of, anyway. I find the term a bit... reductionist? As in it suggests that certain characteristics are inherently masculine, something I disagree with to a large extent. (According to the evo-psych folks on here, perhaps I'm just an ignorant lady?) The stereotypical adventurer does what? S/he is sometimes diplomatic, more often impulsive, kills anything evil (and sometimes not so evil) without much empathy, drinks ale and has sex. Both the average man and average female aren't going around and killing gnolls, but umm... females and males can both be rational, impulsive, empathetic, uncaring, drinkers, and have lots of sex. Anyway, not that I'm offended by the "men-in-drag" term or someone using it, but by that definition a lot of the female heroines I enjoy (mostly from recent urban fantasy novels, which tends to feature lots and lots of sex) - who, not so incidentally, are written by women - and most of the characters I create or think up are men-in-drag. And... no. That's not it.

IMO, most characteristics are neither inherently feminine nor masculine. Rather, certain characteristics are better suited for a particular activity. A D&D adventurer generally has to kill things and take the loot, along with leading a rough-and-tumble life: they may be a bit hard, or flippant about killing, or a variety of other things. In the UF books I read, the female characters are bounty hunters or involved with some official military, investigative, or civic, police-ish duties, so they have to be tough, intelligent and able to kill or disarm various threats. In something like BSG, the male and female characters alike - well, if they're soldiers, officers, pilots, etc. - have to be ready and able to defend themselves. 

So... umm... as shilsen said, treat characters as characters first, and then figure out the way their gender is important. If at all. Finding ways to flesh out characters is most important (well, again, IMO), like making a cool bounty hunter a little softer by writing now and then about his/her love for cooking and gardening. Or making them like kittens and cats a whole lot (hello, Hellboy). Actually, make everyone like cats. That just shows good taste.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

A nice female characterization using stereotypes and rejecting them example might be Zoë Washburn from Firefly, I just notice. 

She is a soldier and that foremost. If we'd use stereotypes, it's more that her husband, Wash, fulfills the "weaker partner" part. 
But I remember there is a scence in the movie where they talk about having kids - She wants them, and Wash doesn't. Here, the stereotypes are more typical. Wash bascially has the usual stereotype male counterarguments ("not now, not the right time"). But she points out - in a manner I think that is not stereotypical for any specific gender at all, I think (paraphrasing): "I am not so afraid of losing something that I won't have it."

Overall, the stereotypes are kinda in use - but often subverted, but sometimes also used straight - and that basically makes the character a lot more nuanced and "real" - they are not just male or female. They are humans with their own personality, informed by the experiences of their life. 

---

In regards to "nature vs nuture" - we might be able to rationalize or explain behavior based on arguments about nature or evolution, but that doesn't make the acceptable or good behavior. Evolution is a natural process, not a moral authority.


----------



## S'mon

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> In regards to "nature vs nuture" - we might be able to rationalize or explain behavior based on arguments about nature or evolution, but that doesn't make the acceptable or good behavior. Evolution is a natural process, not a moral authority.




Evolution has no moral content - but anti-Natural Selection behaviour, such as women not having children, means your line dies out.  This usually means that the space it occupied is taken by another line which is propagating more successfully.

I watched all of BSG and I always thought it weird that _everything _ about the portrayed human society indicated it was on the way out, as surely as the Easter Islanders, or the Tasmanians after European contact/invasion.  It looks like a classic 'Collapse' society, as much from its internal dynamics typified by the interpersonal dynamics portrayed onscreen as from the external Cylon threat.  A stressed society must 'get tough or die' - the BSG humans were clearly taking the latter route.  Yet somehow it never actually finishes dying off.  I guess this was a literal deus ex machina; God was keeping the humans going so they could go screw up yet another planet...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

S'mon said:


> Evolution has no moral content - but anti-Natural Selection behaviour, such as women not having children, means your line dies out.  This usually means that the space it occupied is taken by another line which is propagating more successfully.



Then I might add: 
Evolution doesn't have a natural end goal. 
Just because something worked (repeatedly) in the past and was a trait for survival doesn't mean it will stay one. The dinosaurs were a result of evolution, but changes in their environment made them unable to survive. Humans actively change their environment a lot, and it might turn out that traits that were good are no longer. We can't assume that behavior that might have been great for a cavemen or a hunter-gatherer is still good for us now. Maybe after another 1,000 years of evolution, we'll see that.

And especially regarding BSG. Just because we can survive better if we become barbarians doesn't mean it's moral to do so. Of course our sense of "morals" probably is a result of evolution, too, but I suppose that's just another example on how evolution itself is not moral. In a tough situation, morals can suddenly become a liability for survival. But if we argue from a moral point of view, then what is good for survival is not always morally good.


----------



## S'mon

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But if we argue from a moral point of view, then what is good for survival is not always morally good.




Then morality is anti-adaptive behaviour, morality will be selected against, and over time moral lines & populations will tend to die out and be replaced by less moral ones.

Of course morals are memes not genes, and like diseases, memes can jump from one population to another.  Morality may be leading to population X dying off, but if population Y can be persuaded to accept the morality it may not replace X; and Y may eventually die off also.

Still, any morality that kills its hosts too quickly (eg Heaven's Gate cult) will indeed tend to die off.


----------



## S'mon

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Then I might add:
> Evolution doesn't have a natural end goal.
> Just because something worked (repeatedly) in the past and was a trait for survival doesn't mean it will stay one.




I suspect that reproduction will remain a trait for survival.  

Of course you can overdo it, overpopulation leading to a resource dearth and population crash.  But a population reproducing at at least replacement level seems likely to remain a survival trait when compared to not reproducing.

Edit: And this is particularly the case when other populations are in competition for the same niche; territory ceded to the faster breeding population is much less likely to be regained than is uninhabited territory.


----------



## shilsen

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> A nice female characterization using stereotypes and rejecting them example might be Zoë Washburn from Firefly, I just notice.
> 
> She is a soldier and that foremost. If we'd use stereotypes, it's more that her husband, Wash, fulfills the "weaker partner" part.
> But I remember there is a scence in the movie where they talk about having kids - She wants them, and Wash doesn't. Here, the stereotypes are more typical. Wash bascially has the usual stereotype male counterarguments ("not now, not the right time"). But she points out - in a manner I think that is not stereotypical for any specific gender at all, I think (paraphrasing): "I am not so afraid of losing something that I won't have it."
> 
> Overall, the stereotypes are kinda in use - but often subverted, but sometimes also used straight - and that basically makes the character a lot more nuanced and "real" - they are not just male or female. They are humans with their own personality, informed by the experiences of their life.




That's a good example of well-done gender characterization. The _Firefly_ series and the movie _Serenity_ both feature well-done female characters who, I think, provide another example of the positive influence of adequate representation on characterization. Zoë, River, Kaylee, Inara - all of them are stereotypical in certain/many ways. But they seem functionally less stereotypical because there are other female characters to provide variation and contrast. The same is true of the male characters, since Mal, Wash, Jayne, Simon, Shepherd, the Operative all fit some pretty standard sci-fi/fantasy stereotypes, but the variety of them helps in the characterization. Which is pretty standard for Whedon, just like in _Buffy_. 



> In regards to "nature vs nuture" - we might be able to rationalize or explain behavior based on arguments about nature or evolution, but that doesn't make the acceptable or good behavior. Evolution is a natural process, not a moral authority.




Yup.



> Then I might add:
> Evolution doesn't have a natural end goal.
> Just because something worked (repeatedly) in the past and was a trait for survival doesn't mean it will stay one. The dinosaurs were a result of evolution, but changes in their environment made them unable to survive. Humans actively change their environment a lot, and it might turn out that traits that were good are no longer. We can't assume that behavior that might have been great for a cavemen or a hunter-gatherer is still good for us now. Maybe after another 1,000 years of evolution, we'll see that.




Yup yup.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

S'mon said:


> Then morality is anti-adaptive behaviour, morality will be selected against, and over time moral lines & populations will tend to die out and be replaced by less moral ones.
> 
> Of course morals are memes not genes, and like diseases, memes can jump from one population to another.  Morality may be leading to population X dying off, but if population Y can be persuaded to accept the morality it may not replace X; and Y may eventually die off also.
> 
> Still, any morality that kills its hosts too quickly (eg Heaven's Gate cult) will indeed tend to die off.



I could ask you whether you think that, if morals are indeed not as conductive to the species survival, they should go away? But that's certainly a loaded question. 

I tend to believe that moral behavior ultimately leads to good for the survival of the species. So any genetic traits that help us act moral or accept morals will survive for the future, and any that don't will be diminsihed, and the "meme" of morals itself will survive and change to make it better for us overall. But that's just a believe, I could be wrong.

Anyway, just because some our behavior can be explained by evolutionary concepts still doesn't guarantee it is good for us, and certainly isn't inherently a "moral" thing we need to keep around for that. Maybe gender stereotypes were a great thing for our survival when most of our daily activities involved physical heavy duty and was not so great for the survival of unborn, and there were lots of stuff to do to maintain a household (be it in a cave or a real house). It doesn't mean that it's great now, when we have dish-washers, microwaves, freezers, water pumps, textile factories, as well as pig farms, tractors, cars, planes or computers and generally a lot more free time than ever before.
So we have to evaluate the behaviors and traditions "evolved" in a different environment then our current ones, and adapt those that don't fit. In a way, we're doing natural selections work, based on capabilities we gained by natural selection in the first place. 

Of course, that is not an argument against sexism within a setting. It's an argument against sexism today. An argument for sexism in fantasy is that
1) It has to find an audience today.
2) We can use a setting to explore the unknown - a different evolutionary path - just because we didn't take it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, particularly in a world of magic that can change around so many things...
3) When we do it, do it consciously, not just because your millenia old "reflexes" make you do it. 

I suppose 2 and 3 are the same, in a way - use it because you want to use it for a reason.


----------



## Dausuul

shilsen said:


> As an addendum, I'll add something about how I think writing a character well can work, as done by BSG. Give the character motivation(s), strength(s), weakness(es), and don't worry about whether these are stereotypically masculine or feminine. And then consider a couple of places where the character's gender might affect things, and add it in.




That's an excellent approach. It might also help to avoid picking the character's sex until after deciding on those non-gender-specified motivations, strengths, and weaknesses.

(Obviously, this is not possible if you're planning the character as a love interest for an existing character whose sex and orientation are established; i.e., a love interest for a heterosexual male character pretty much has to be female. However, characters created specifically to serve as love interests are usually pretty flat.)


----------



## shilsen

Dausuul said:


> That's an excellent approach. It might also help to avoid picking the character's sex until after deciding on those non-gender-specified motivations, strengths, and weaknesses.




Thanks. I guess I wasn't clear enough, but when I wrote "And then consider a couple of places where the character's gender might affect things, and add it in", I meant that one should pick the gender at that point, not at the beginning.



> (Obviously, this is not possible if you're planning the character as a love interest for an existing character whose sex and orientation are established; i.e., a love interest for a heterosexual male character pretty much has to be female. However, characters created specifically to serve as love interests are usually pretty flat.)




Agreed.


----------



## S'mon

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I could ask you whether you think that, if morals are indeed not as conductive to the species survival, they should go away? But that's certainly a loaded question.




Um, you seem to be using "morals" as an absolute.  Obviously most moralities do not lead to species extinction, since they are evolved memes - the anti-survival ones die out, often along with their hosts.

I'm in favour of good morality, but that's a tautology.

Is there a morality I'm in favour of that is not conducive to species survival?  I can't think of any.  Being conducive to species survival is a good thing in my book.  I suppose there are moralities that are not completely _optimum_ for survival, but make people a lot happier, which I am in favour of.  More importantly, there are highly-conducive moralities which I don't want for myself but I'm very glad certain other people have because they create a safe & pleasant environment.  I'm not much for religion & owning guns, for instance, but I like it when certain people around me have both.


----------



## RaidingPartyGames

I think it worth mentioning in regards to male vs. female promiscuity:
One theory about the development of the primate penis is a prevalence of female selection of multiple mates.  For those of you with handy access to a penis, be it yours or another's, look at the bottom of the glans.  The bulbous shape there has been found to be ideal for pumping fluid out of a container; if it is in fact used in this fashion (as has been observed in primates), it indicates said development could be a response to females taking multiple mates.

Note that unless you believe in some form of intelligent design, even evolution itself being an ideal towards which life is striving, the idea of evolutionary traits being a response to something is bunk.  The trait itself is a random characteristic that may or may not help.
I state this because I'm not saying that primates have a bulbous glans for that purpose, but it seems to have been selected for in the past, and that female promiscuity may be a reason for which it was selected.

The idea of female promiscuity being selected for ends up being borne out in sperm warfare, which would also not take place unless a female had more than one sexual partner.


----------



## Rel

wtf?


----------



## Garthanos

Rel said:


> wtf?




Did you miss how certain things that are frequently frowned on from a moral perspective (promiscuity in general) are in fact biologically supported to enhance survival of the species relates to sexism - aka treating others significantly better or worse based on gender? I think I missed it too.. 

...fascinating discussion anyway.


----------



## radferth

Did RPG just win "Stump the Moderator"?


----------



## ProfessorCirno

What.


----------



## Garthanos

ProfessorCirno said:


> What.



Not a question mark but a period.. is everyone confused?


----------



## pawsplay

man what


----------



## DreadPirateMurphy

Human psychology is a lot more complicated than we give it credit.  We all discriminate, we all pre-judge and make snap judgements, and we all underestimate how much sexuality influences our behavior.

What matters is how we choose to deal with these feelings, how much empathy we show other people, and how much self-awareness we have.

Immature men behaving badly around women makes more mature men feel embarassed and upset, just as it offends women.  Unfortunately, you cannot get away from a certain percentage of the population behaving this way.  This will be true in ANY environment that includes a mixed age demographic.  We will never escape this.

The sexuality inherent in RPG marketing is more offensive because it is crude, and so speaks to baser feelings.  There is a tremendous amount of more sophisticated sexuality in advertising that we don't even notice, because we are so acclimated to it.  Open up ANY magazine -- it doesn't have to be GQ or Glamour -- open up Time or The Economist, and look for sexualized themes and images in ads.  It will take you about five seconds, if you're truly attentive.  The less-sophisticated imagery is one of the things that marks RPGs as being targeted at adolescents (possibly not deliberately, in all cases).

The prevalence of NPCs may or may not be evidence of sexism.  A male DM may struggle to create realistic female NPCs, just as a male author sometimes fails to do justice to female characters.  There may be a subconscious selection factor at work.

D&D is inherently sexist because human beings are inherently sexist.  What we need to do is call out bad behavior when we see it, and strive as individuals to act in a fair and thoughtful manner.  We also need to understand how youthful bravado and inappropriate behavior is sometimes used to cover insecurity or discomfort.

(This post doesn't flow as well as I hoped, but it is late.)


----------



## Dice4Hire

Couldn't people choose a better thread for thread necromancy?


----------



## Garthanos

DreadPirateMurphy said:


> (This post doesn't flow as well as I hoped, but it is late.)




Flowed nicely to me... I liked


----------



## S'mon

Dice4Hire said:


> Couldn't people choose a better thread for thread necromancy?




Yeah, I feel slightly embarrassed to see my spur-of-the-moment posts reanimated as rotting shambling hulks...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

S'mon said:


> Yeah, I feel slightly embarrassed to see my spur-of-the-moment posts reanimated as rotting shambling hulks...




To do that, one would have to use the Necrolexonomicon!


----------



## Rel

radferth said:


> Did RPG just win "Stump the Moderator"?




I just felt that the post which preceded mine had considerably more "primate penis" than is probably necessary for ENWorld.  Particularly for the first post of a new user (if it's not an alt).  I used the red text because I wanted to make it an official policy statement.


----------



## pawsplay

Rel said:


> I just felt that the post which preceded mine had considerably more "primate penis" than is probably necessary for ENWorld.




... Ok, this is weird.

And I can't decide if that's siggable or not.


----------



## Nifft

Rel said:


> I just felt that the post which preceded mine had considerably more "primate penis" than is probably necessary for ENWorld.  Particularly for the first post of a new user (if it's not an alt).  I used the red text because I wanted to make it an official policy statement.



 I'm glad we have an official statement on that particular ratio.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## pawsplay

RaidingPartyGames said:


> For those of you with handy access to a penis, be it yours or another's, look at the bottom of the glans.  The bulbous shape there has been found to be ideal for pumping fluid out of a container; if it is in fact used in this fashion (as has been observed in primates), it indicates said development could be a response to females taking multiple mates.




Pictures or it didn't happen.


----------



## RaidingPartyGames

I think it's probably my second post, actually; my absolute first was my creating an account to add to the tribute to Col Pladoh's passing.

Rel, thank you for the policy clarification.  I understand completely.

Back on track; that was admittedly a lot of man-part to be flinging around, but my point is as such:
There is good evidence (both physical and social) of a female imperative to have multiple partners.  Surprise surprise; the more people they have sex with, the more likely they are to pass along their genetic legacy!  It's not just the boys.
Also, there have been a handful of polyandrous households in historical earth, usually in jungle settings.  No clue whether the authority was with the women.

Jumping to the "my own experiences" thread, I have a definite male bias for monsters and villains, but for NPCs I usually flip a coin.  After realizing this, I have started intentionally injecting female opposition.
I've been DM for an all female group, mixed groups, and all males.  I can only hope I'm doing a good job keeping everyone engaged and welcomed.


----------



## RaidingPartyGames

pawsplay said:


> Pictures or it didn't happen.




bonobo sex - Google Search


----------



## Dausuul

Somewhere, Eric's grandmother is crying.


----------



## pawsplay

What? Bonobos are like totally cute.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

Why.


----------



## pawsplay

RaidingPartyGames said:


> I've been DM for an all female group, mixed groups, and all males.  I can only hope I'm doing a good job keeping everyone engaged and welcomed.




...

Oh, nevermind. Too easy.


----------



## Wik

pawsplay said:


> What? Bonobos are like totally cute.




YYup.  Totally changes how you look at them, eh?  Join some anthropology classes, and wait till you get to the part about homosexual elephants.

I kid you not.

Regarding Polyandrous households... they do exist, but in every study ever done, those settings were still either "sort of" egalitarian (as no true egalitarian society as yet to exist, by many arguments), or male-dominated.  

Don't know of any jungle polyandrous societies... the only ones that spring to mind for me right now are chinese or polynesian.  

As far as "primate penis"... um, that really doesn't prove a whole helluva lot.  There are so many arguments that hominid culture trumps any sort of biological imperative that, well, if you're interested, I leave the google search to you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Somehow, this thread has turned into a quasi-intellectual discussion about the Bloodhound Gang's "The Bad Touch" (a.k.a. "You & me baby ain't nothing but mammals...").


----------



## The_Gneech

...if you know what I mean and I think ... nevermind.

-The Gneech


----------



## Umbran

DreadPirateMurphy said:


> Open up ANY magazine -- it doesn't have to be GQ or Glamour -- open up Time or The Economist, and look for sexualized themes and images in ads.  It will take you about five seconds, if you're truly attentive.




Problem: To quote Tom Lehrer, "When correctly viewed, everything is lewd."  Much like rudeness and edition warring - if you are _actively looking_ to find sexuality, you'll find it, even if it was not present originally.


----------



## Garthanos

Umbran said:


> Problem: To quote Tom Lehrer, "When correctly viewed, everything is lewd."




Exactly .... we bring to the table what we have in our heads .... don't think you are right on rudeness and edition warring ... much of that is flat out blatant and requires absolutely no "looking" for it nor do I think it is usually accidental.  But you have closer experience with it and I wasn't here in the early days of the era of the edition wars...


----------



## Rel

Umbran said:


> if you are _actively looking_ to find sexuality, you'll find it, even if it was not present originally.




This method has worked for me!


----------



## pawsplay

Umbran said:


> Problem: To quote Tom Lehrer, "When correctly viewed, everything is lewd."  Much like rudeness and edition warring - if you are _actively looking_ to find sexuality, you'll find it, even if it was not present originally.




Well, a lot of sexualized images in advertising are intended. And a more than cursory examination will probably make this quite evident. Glancing at their web pages, it looks like the current Coors and Michelob campaigns are actually not that sexualized, but beer is pretty reliable for finding those kinds of images. For instance:


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Most people go to the free clinic to get rid of carbs, or so I hear.


----------



## Desdichado

RaidingPartyGames said:


> After realizing this, I have started intentionally injecting female opposition.



Yeah, me too.

What?


----------



## Furby076

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> In fact, you're really just starting with a conclusion and then expecting everyone to chime in and agree with you, rather than have a serious discussion.
> 
> Anyone who knows anything about the evolution of the hobby knows why it's predominantely male.  It originated with wargames (overwhelmingly male), merged in elements of fantasy literature (at the time, mostly male), and for a number of reasons was mostly attractive to the geeks and the nerds.  Throw in some early bad publicity, and voila.



Issues with your argument
1) Who cares how we got here, we are here, and Shilsen is trying to come up with a discussion of how do we change the climate
2) Since when is geekdom relegated to mostly men? Just because there is a stereotype does not mean it's true. I know tons of geeky girls, about as many as I do men
3) Since when do women not like fantasy literature?  You say at the time, do you think they just started to like it in 1980? Come on - that's a craptastic argument.
4) Since when do women not like wargames? Have you seen the military? When I was in college army rotc, about 40% of my classmates were female - some were geeky, and some were hot (one was homecoming queen).

Your opening salvo was making gross sociological generalizations - without proof.




Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> Like everything else, it's evolved.  The truly sexist RPG stuff is the butt of jokes (eg FATAL), or has been coopted by women gamers themselves (the chainmail bikini).  The only games that draw gender distinctions anymore are the ones with some greater focus on realism or historical accuracy, and even with those it's largely lip-service.




Have you seen some the current DnD books/pictures? The men are wearing full plate armor that looks like armor should, or long flowing robes.  The women are wearing full plate armor that hugs their body like a wetsuit. And if they are spellcasters - well no full robes needed, skimpy loin cloth will do.




Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> The bigger factor is that most people got in to RPGs because someone they knew introduced them to the hobby.   When you're young, that's primarily other people of the same gender and background.




Maybe in your youth women were scarce to you, but in my youth women were a plenty...see what I did there, anecdotal evidence.




Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> And as the hobby matured, so did the gamers, and the demographics spread.  Hang around with some adult gamers, and see how many are part of groups with married couples.




Anecdotal. I have gamed with many people over the years (probably 30-40 if i were to guesstimate), and only one of the married couples played together - and the wife only came to spend time with her husband and her husbands friends.  Again - though - anecdotal, just like your comments.




Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> And they're raising the second generation of gamers, sons *and* daughters.   One of the mods here let his daughter GM at a couple ENWorld gamedays, and she wasn't running the game for kids, but for adults.  I don't think he would have let her do that if he thought that gaming was a sexist endeavor.




Or he eliminated/minimized the sexism. Or he could be one of those parents who could care less about sexism and figures a bit of blunt reality would be good for his daughter. You shouldn't guess what other people think.




Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> Every gaming group I've been a part of has had female gamers.  They ran the same gamut that the guys did, good players and bad, powergamers and drama queens, rules-lawyers and space cadets.




Shilsen never said that female gamers couldn't run the same gamut as males, he said that sexism is the issue preventing more females from joining the game.

Sorry your post brings nothing more then anecdotal evidence - actually just personal evidence from you- and doesn't argue the point Shilsen is making. I am sure it is arguing some point, but not what the OP is making.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Well, that steaming pile of dueling anecdote with equal anecdote was not worth tread necromancy. 

But it makes it worth going to unsubscribe from this, pronto!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re: Fiction demographics

There was some recent research published in Publisher's Weekly that noted that, among adults, men tend to prefer non-fiction over fiction, whereas women tend to prefer fiction over non-fiction.''

There is also an element of fewer males being dedicated readers than females (IOW, those who read more than just the newspaper or periodicals).

Other sources note that there is also an age differential in habits- young males and older females are more likely to enjoy genre fiction & derivative products (such as RPGs and computer games) than older males and younger females.

I've yet to see actual reliable numbers on particular genres broken down by gender...though I'd bet that Romance is generally read by women and Horror by men.  Beyond that?

I'd just be guessing.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

*Why.*


----------



## Pig Champion

Funny this thread should be brought back, I was told to "Get out ya dick" by a young lady passing by in a car. 

I hate subjects like this. It basically comes down to the women themselves. In my area there is a pretty big discrimination trend going on at the moment about a race I happen to belong to. If I hear anyone at the table utter such nonsense then I'll gladly say something.

My girlfriend and her friend when playing with us have also said when the sexist jokes were crossing the line as well. 

I think instead of looking for solutions you should probably let the individual women or girl deal with it in the way they see fit. Everyone is different and a lot of people can be a tad insensitive but not really mean any harm just like some people can be oversensitive and take every reference as a sexist or racist remark.

That's just me though.


----------



## S'mon

Pig Champion said:


> In my area there is a pretty big discrimination trend going on at the moment about a race I happen to belong to.




Aye, it's tough being a pig.


----------



## Pig Champion

S'mon said:


> Aye, it's tough being a pig.




HYYOOOOOH! He's here all week folks!


----------



## Afrodyte

Pig Champion said:


> Everyone is different and a lot of people can be a tad insensitive but not really mean any harm just like some people can be oversensitive and take every reference as a sexist or racist remark.




IMXP, the people who call others "oversensitive" about racism and sexism are generally not the ones on the receiving end of such treatment, so it tends to make their assumptions about things pretty suspect.


----------



## pawsplay

Pig Champion said:


> It basically comes down to the women themselves.




In what way? Are you saying women are responsible for dealing with insensitive comments directed toward them?


----------



## Wik

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I've yet to see actual reliable numbers on particular genres broken down by gender...though I'd bet that Romance is generally read by women and Horror by men.  Beyond that?
> 
> I'd just be guessing.




Anecdotal evidence on my end says that you're wrong on the horror part - I know a lot of women love horror in the vein of Stephen King and whatnot.  I'd say the readership in that area is female dominated, too (just look at the book "The Lovely Bones", which was clearly aimed towards a female audience, and contains some definite horror influences).  

***

Onto the subject at hand... this thread always amuses me.  I game with two women right now, which is exactly one third of my gaming group (do the math, folks!).  There isn't any problem or real difference - one loves killing things, the other tends to like solving problems... so, sort of like the male members of my group.  I can't think of any time they were stereotypical "girls" in play - during an encounter where the PCs had to buy clothes for a party, I think they spent less time worrying about what they wore than everyone else, if memory serves.

All of these people who go out and say "we need to get more women in the group!" are kind of silly and too politically-correct in my view.  If there are no women in your group, well, that's fine.  Do you need to go out and recruit women into your game?  No.  Are you sexist for not having women in your game?  No.  

So long as your game is open to the possibility of women gamers joining, I think you're fine.  Hell, even if it's not, and you're just running a gentleman's club, that's fine too - we're not here to fix some huge social problem.  We're here to have fun.  Encourage women to join the game when you talk to them in the same way you're encourage males, and worry less about demographics.

To use a flawed example, I have gamed with probably around sixty or seventy people in my life.  Not a single one has been black.  Now, I live in Canada, so our demographics are a bit different than the states (ever notice how there are so few black hockey players?  ), but by the numbers, there should have been at least one.  Does that mean I'm a racist?  Nope.  Does it mean I should go out and recruit black players?  God, no - that'd be about the most racist thing I could do.  

Incidentally, I think there is a decent comparison, here - there is at least as much racism in D&D game art and presentation as there is sexism.  Ever notice that most of the characters in the game are caucasian?  Ever notice that the darker-skinned races tend to be much more animalistic... such as, say, shifters, which are even described in the PHB as "humans with animalistic features... their faces have a bestial cast... shifter skin and hair are usually some shade of brown".  While the game has made obvious strides in being multiethnic in presentation (much like it has with the presentation of women), it sure as hell ain't equal yet.  

Anyways, to sum it all up:  Live and let live, and stop worrying about the numbers.  We're not here to fix the world... we're here to save an imaginary world from being overrun by orcs.


----------



## Mark Chance

Wik said:


> So long as your game is open to the possibility of women gamers joining, I think you're fine.  Hell, even if it's not, and you're just running a gentleman's club, that's fine too.




Amen.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Wik said:


> So long as your game is open to the possibility of women gamers joining, I think you're fine.  Hell, even if it's not, and you're just running a gentleman's club, that's fine too - we're not here to fix some huge social problem.




But gaming _IN_ a gentleman's club will get you ridiculed.


----------



## Aramax

RaidingPartyGames said:


> I think it's probably my second post, actually; my absolute first was my creating an account to add to the tribute to Col Pladoh's passing.
> 
> Rel, thank you for the policy clarification. I understand completely.
> 
> Back on track; that was admittedly a lot of man-part to be flinging around, but my point is as such:
> There is good evidence (both physical and social) of a female imperative to have multiple partners. Surprise surprise; the more people they have sex with, the more likely they are to pass along their genetic legacy! It's not just the boys.
> Also, there have been a handful of polyandrous households in historical earth, usually in jungle settings. No clue whether the authority was with the women.
> 
> Jumping to the "my own experiences" thread, I have a definite male bias for monsters and villains, but for NPCs I usually flip a coin. After realizing this, I have started intentionally injecting female opposition.
> I've been DM for an all female group, mixed groups, and all males. I can only hope I'm doing a good job keeping everyone engaged and welcomed.



 I had a male friend who always said he wanted to have multiple women to father children by to insure his line would continue,I have since found out that children not raised by thier biological father have a much higher chance on dying(from a multitude of reasons)than children raised by thier biological father.sorry but monogomy is the correct form of child rearing.


----------



## Pig Champion

pawsplay said:


> In what way? Are you saying women are responsible for dealing with insensitive comments directed toward them?




Sure and in whatever way they see fit. As I was trying to point out, not all women are the same and some might not mind things that others will so IMO I think it's best left in the individuals hands. I don't think a blanket solution works in the context of gaming or gaming groups.



Afrodyte said:


> IMXP, the people who call others "oversensitive" about racism and sexism are generally not the ones on the receiving end of such treatment, so it tends to make their assumptions about things pretty suspect.




I wouldn't really want to go down this road. I try to look at things objectively and although as a general rule I agree but I was just pointing out that some people are in fact oversensitive. 

I mean, we've all had the oversensitive friend haven't we? The one where over the years we've just grown not to mention or bring up certain subjects around because of their inability to discuss it in a civil way.


----------



## El Mahdi

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But gaming _IN_ a gentleman's club will get you ridiculed.




I don't know, I could see Role Playing having it's place at a gentlemans club.  Or at least in the VIP Room.

Also, when it's a thread concerning sex, is it really thread Necromancy to bring it back, or Necrophilia?


----------



## pawsplay

Pig Champion said:


> Sure and in whatever way they see fit. As I was trying to point out, not all women are the same and some might not mind things that others will so IMO I think it's best left in the individuals hands. I don't think a blanket solution works in the context of gaming or gaming groups.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't really want to go down this road. I try to look at things objectively and although as a general rule I agree but I was just pointing out that some people are in fact oversensitive.
> 
> I mean, we've all had the oversensitive friend haven't we? The one where over the years we've just grown not to mention or bring up certain subjects around because of their inability to discuss it in a civil way.




If somone experiences inappropriate behavior, how relevant is it to figure out if they are being "oversensitive?" That's like saying, "Gosh, you've been dehumanized and prejudged your whole life, why are you so over-sensitive?"

You're right there is no blanket solution. That is why we should strive for a reasonable standard of behavior that generally does not unnecessarily offend people.


----------



## Pig Champion

pawsplay said:


> If somone experiences inappropriate behavior, how relevant is it to figure out if they are being "oversensitive?" That's like saying, "Gosh, you've been dehumanized and prejudged your whole life, why are you so over-sensitive?"






> You're right there is no blanket solution. That is why we should strive for a reasonable standard of behavior that generally does not unnecessarily offend people.




I'm glad we agree and to answer your question...Well I had a very long and personalized post but I realized that this subject is just too multifaceted for internet forum discussion.  

I believe that these subjects are up to the individual but in doing so I believe that everybody has a social obligation not to bring unnecessary baggage to the DnD group.

It's one thing for someone to use sexist terminology or racist slurs at the table and toward another player but it's quite another for someone to get abusive and indignant over an umbrella term like "Pacific Islander"*.

* Note that I am Melanesian, ethnically we're more in tune with Asians or Austonesians (such as the Guinean or Cham people) yet culturally we share ties with Polynesians. Some consider Pacific Islander a slur because we don't belong to the people commonly assocated with such a term while others see it as a labelling of our homeland.

I believe to abuse another player over such a distinction (that they can't possibly be aware of) is being oversensitive.


----------



## Wik

Pig Champion said:


> It's one thing for someone to use sexist terminology or racist slurs at the table and toward another player but it's quite another for someone to get abusive and indignant over an umbrella term like "Pacific Islander"*.




This made me laugh, if only because technically, it would apply to me as well... since I, you know, live on an island in the pacific.


----------



## Pig Champion

Wik said:


> This made me laugh, if only because technically, it would apply to me as well... since I, you know, live on an island in the pacific.




Haha, then i've done my job  Personally I don't mind it but yet it causes so many, so much distress.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

El Mahdi said:


> I don't know, I could see Role Playing having it's place at a gentlemans club.  Or at least in the VIP Room.
> 
> Also, when it's a thread concerning sex, is it really thread Necromancy to bring it back, or Necrophilia?




To paraphrase Chris Rock:  There is no gaming in the Champagne Room... NONE!  Oh there's CHAMPAGNE in the Champagne Room
But you don't want champagne.. you want gaming
And there's NO gaming... in the Champagne Room


----------



## Gentlegamer

Way up thread I mentioned a reference in OD&D to Women's Lib:

From Greyhawk, D&D Supplement I, page 35 (misspelling and emphasis in the original):
DRAGONS: These additional varities of Dragons conform to the typical characteristics of their species except where noted. There is only one King of Lawful Dragons, just as there is only one Queen of Chaotic Dragons (Women's Lib may make whatever they wish from the foregoing).​


----------



## RaidingPartyGames

Aramax said:


> I had a male friend who always said he wanted to have multiple women to father children by to insure his line would continue,I have since found out that children not raised by thier biological father have a much higher chance on dying(from a multitude of reasons)than children raised by thier biological father.sorry but monogomy is the correct form of child rearing.




I'm baffled why you're replying to me, as well as why you're apologizing.  I'm also not sure by what metric you're determining "correct", or what study you're quoting.  If you're going by biological imperative, if you raise X children, any children produced beyond that are just gravy; even if mathematically it's just 1/10 of a child.  (I don't know what statistics you're using, so this "much higher" is sort of meaningless... I'm assuming 1/10 here.)  So even if only 1/X children not raised by their biological fathers survive to reproduce, creating X children without raising them is probably as good a strategy as creating and raising 1 child (for a given level of effort, variable by parent).
Please note that I am _not_ encouraging anyone to abandon their children, and am in favor of strong parenting.  However, I disagree with the assertion that there's just the one system, and find your thesis flawed.


----------



## ProfessorCirno

*Why.*


----------



## Phospheratuna

*To Op*

Most of all, I don't know what you're typing about because you never specify what in D&D, other rpgs, or this site you're offended by. Instead, you take for granted we all know what sexism you're referencing. 

I infer from what you write that the presentation being more masculine in mindset bothers you. Why? Does it make more sense to you for a man to present in a feminine manner? You seem to confuse an emphasis on men with an assertion that men are superior. It's natural that we're most concerned with and use as our frame of reference groups we belong to. That isn't elitism. 

It sounds like your gf has convinced you to write for her. A tone comes off your post that's very feminist, "you men don't pay enough attention to us women". If a woman doesn't like a game because it doesn't take women into consideration enough for her taste then let her play another game. If she can find no satisfactory game let her make one. 

I'm geniunly surprised you consider modern D&D sexist. Since 3rd edition its' makers have taken pains to alternate between "he" and "she" in their choice of characters sexes (like the default characters for each class they use as examples. Shandra the wizard has to memorize spells before using them etc.). Their concept art is full of women and they're clad in practical as opposed to fan-service armor.
 Thier effort to appeal to women and be politically correct extends to unrealistic game mechanics and setting. In real life men are definitively stronger and tougher than women. But there are no stat differences based on sex in the game. Games like Arcanum were more honest about these facts of life. Likewise, always worldwide men have dominated women. There are a few matriarchal societies in history like the Iroquois but even with them you're pushing it if you say the power balance was reversed. In a medieval-type setting based on 14th-15th century Europe you would not have female adventurers. Seriously try to imagine one of the Kings of France hiring a band of women or a party with female membership or led by a woman to some important quest. Them hiring mercenaries is kind of a stretch anyway but in these socieities women were defined as second-class citizens. Even the queens didn't raise female nobles to balance the aristocracy. 
If you wanted a more legitimate game to cite as sexist you could point to the old monster-manuals with  hanging out. But again, how is that inately sexist? What about the idea of a succubus or a dragon holding a naked woman (or even a demon raping one) implicitly states, "men are better than women"? 

Really, the "women can do anything men can do" idea folks are lauding in Eberron is . Bear in mind, equatable does not mean exact matches. You can have two different formulas which have a sum of 2 but their component variables could still be different. Anyway, in real life it's apparent that a man and a woman are not the same thing. How many men do you know who've birthed a child? How many women do you know with blue collar jobs? Having a setting which tries to make the sexes the same socially is favoring political correctness over realism. 

Pen and Paper games are all just launching pads (with 4.o a hand-holding exception) for whatever you imagine. A woman who hates a game because the default campaign setting has insufficient reverence for women is a bitch.


----------



## Alzrius

You performed thread-necromancy just to be a troll about it? Bad form!

The title says that this thread comes with solutions, the most obvious being to let this particular thread on the topic die, since it wasn't accomplishing anything. 

I, for one, intend to continue doing that (after this post, I mean).


----------



## Rel

This thread has failed me for the last time.


----------

