# Alternative: Girls (females) in D&D/ Roleplaying



## nedjer (Aug 8, 2010)

The OP on 'Girls (females) in D&D/ Roleplaying' manages to/ sets out to completely skip the question of attitudes to, (and attitudes about doing anything about attitudes to), women TRPG players. Time to 'fess up' properly:



 Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between  the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?
  Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers?
  Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?
  Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?
  Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs?
  Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs?
  Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids equally or females).
  Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts?
  Have you or AYWT actively discourage obvious and persistent sexism at your game table, e.g. don't laugh along with the jokes/ speak up if a female player appears uncomfortable with some of what's being said?


----------



## Wik (Aug 8, 2010)

Okay.  I'll bite.  

1.  I'll do both in my games, depending on the setting.  My female players have, historically, not cared.  And I have actually ignored playing certain games (Pendragon, for example) because I knew my female players would not get much fun out of it.  

2.  Maybe SOME female gamers.  Not any I know - they just joke about it, shrug, and get on with it.  Seriously, some people in the world need thicker skin.  Sorry for saying it.  

3.  No.  Anyone is open for play - there is no preference set out for anyone.  Going out of your way to recruit females is just creepy.

4.  Again, no.  Unless they're having an "ugly day" and want to feel attractive.  Then it's "join an RPG group, or go into a gaming store - every single guy in there will think you're the most attractive person ever!"  Sad but true.  

5.  Not really.  This is not my battle - I'm a white, twenty-something guy.  The portrayal of women in RPGs is not my fight.  I have no strong feeling about it, either way.  I do have this dream of telling Kevin Siembieda that he gave "This whole RPG thing" a fighting chance, and that he should instead focus his energies on landscaping.  Or bull-fighting.  

6.  Wait.  You mean actually PLAY with them?  Ugh!  Hell no!  Playing with kids is annoying.  I game as a leisure activity.  I don't want to be the creepy guy recruiting twelve year olds to come "play" in his living room.  

7.  What the hell?  The girls in my group are bloodthirsty minxes.  Just last week, when I had to do a one-off session, I was told by one of the girls that she needed her "killing fix".  If I made it such a balance, it would be boring the wimminfolk, not getting them involved.  But yes, I do like a balance in my games.  I guess that makes me in touch with my feminine side... actually, if I had a feminine side, I'd be touching it pretty often.  Sueezing it, mostly.  Honk.

8.  We play 4e D&D.  There's very little "sexist content".  But I get where you're going with this, and absolutely.  Gotta say, though, I'm a little bugged how there are matriarchal societies in abundance in D&D, but any patriarchal society is always underdeveloped and savage.  If you can do one, you can do the other, can't you?

9.  Oh, sure.  But I mean, that's part of the "Don't be a jerk" rule.  And it doesn't just apply to the women - it goes for everyone.  That being said, we make plenty of sexist jokes, and I have on occasion asked one of my female players "Wait, shouldn't you be in the kitchen?".  This always gets a laugh, because that's the group of friends I have. I'm sure we'd piss off some girls.


----------



## Oryan77 (Aug 8, 2010)

I really don't give any of this kind of stuff any thought. My wife plays (she's Afghan and super hot, you'd never think she plays D&D), and I have played with several other women over the years. I don't cater my games to the guys just because they were born male, so why would I cater to a woman just because she's female.

I actually try to cater to the individual player and provide scenarios that I hope that person would like. I won't alter an entire campaign for one type of player.

Besides, girls are not some mystical rare creature to me. I think it is funny every time I see threads pop up that single women out. Why stop there? Why don't we have similar threads that are all about black guys? Black D&D players seem to be more rare than female D&D players. Even better, how can we bring more black women into D&D? I mean, does it really matter?  (I know these girl threads pop up just for fun, I'm just teasing).

The funny thing is, most of the problem players I've gamed with were the women. So really, we might want to discourage women from playing D&D rather than cater to them to get them to play.


----------



## nedjer (Aug 8, 2010)

Wik said:


> Okay.  I'll bite.
> 
> 1.  I'll do both in my games, depending on the setting.  My female players have, historically, not cared.  And I have actually ignored playing certain games (Pendragon, for example) because I knew my female players would not get much fun out of it.
> 
> ...




One of the best replies to a bunch of questions I've ever seen. Could watch TV for a year without getting anything as undiluted


----------



## jonesy (Aug 8, 2010)

Wik said:


> ...everything...



Apparently I need to spread exp before giving it to you again.

However, I've just been told, sorry, commanded, by my girlfriend to tell you the following:

"You sir, are *awesome*. A _million_ hugs and kisses to you. *Rock on!*"


----------



## S'mon (Aug 8, 2010)

My experience has been that female players' most serious objection has been to setting elements they feel are disempowering to their female PCs, so I aim not to include such elements in games with female players.  Eg I had a couple female players who objected to some institutional sexism in the society of a late-medieval setting which (contrary to my intent) they perceived as limiting to their very high level PCs, but they had a good time playing low-level but butt-kicking female barbarian PCs in a Conan game, and having handsome youths hanging off them admiringly ike a reverse Frazetta painting.

One player didn't like the inclusion of 'helpless damsel' type NPCs in the game, and since then I've tended to avoid such NPCs/rescue quest objects in games with female players, or else go some lengths to ensure the NPC was a well developed character who retained her dignity (and she ended up marrying one of the male PCs).

Overall, I think the main thing is to be responsive to your players, both male and female, and as far as possible adapt your GMing style to what suits them best.  Obviously you shouldn't sacrifice your own enjoyment, and it's ok to run eg a 'guy's night' game, but if so be clear on what you're doing, don't market your game under false pretences, and don't deceive yourself about the nature of your game.  If you do have female players, obviously you need to give their preferences parity with those of your male players. 

My advice there is aimed at male GMs, but it applies to female GMs too.  It applies to all sorts.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Aug 8, 2010)

I don't see it as my job to recruit more women into the hobby. I do see it as my job not to be a dick, and part of that is avoiding some of the sexist stuff you mention when I'm around teh wimmins.

I've always been down with the idea that there should be more powerful female NPCs (and evil drow don't cut it), than have presented in many published rpg materials, particularly those from the 70s. If it's supposed to be historical, then fine. But D&D, for example, has never been very historical.


----------



## Lord Xtheth (Aug 8, 2010)

If women want to be in my games, they need to grow a pair 

But no, seriously, I don't change anything in my game sessions for women in general, unless they spacifically come up to me and say "Hey, I didn't like this beacause [reason]".


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 8, 2010)

nedjer said:


> The OP on 'Girls (females) in D&D/ Roleplaying' manages to/ sets out to completely skip the question of attitudes to, (and attitudes about doing anything about attitudes to), women TRPG players. Time to 'fess up' properly:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I just want to take a quick second to point out here that these questions in particular are actually sex-neutral when it comes to RPGs.  That studly behemoth of a loin-cloth-wrapped man and that bountiful beauty of a chain-mail bikini-clad woman are the same.

This is a common misunderstanding I see when it comes to movies, comics, games, and real life.  Depictions of super-men and bikini-babes are equally as sexist, and it is together, men and women, rejecting sexism that progress is made.  But remember, all's fair in love and war, combating sexism with a rejection of men only makes the situation worse.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 8, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I just want to take a quick second to point out here that these questions in particular are actually sex-neutral when it comes to RPGs.  That studly behemoth of a loin-cloth-wrapped man and that bountiful beauty of a chain-mail bikini-clad woman are the same.
> 
> This is a common misunderstanding I see when it comes to movies, comics, games, and real life.  Depictions of super-men and bikini-babes are equally as sexist, and it is together, men and women, rejecting sexism that progress is made.  But remember, all's fair in love and war, combating sexism with a rejection of men only makes the situation worse.




Yes and no.  It's complicated.

Barbarian men and fantasy stylized men are hyper-masculine.  The emphasis is on their muscle structure, their biceps, large broadened shoulders, thick bodyset.  The traditional barbarian man has a high lifted gaze, a very grounded stance.  Traditionally he is very scarred and, well, _not_ attractive, covered in grim and blood.  The primary emphasis is in determination and strength.  If a woman is presented in the same picture, she's in a state of supplication, while the male typically ignores her.

Barbarian and fantasy styled women are hyper-_sexualized_.  The emphasis is on their sexual features, large breasts, plush lips, widened eyes, bizarrely thing waist.  They have a swayed back to better show off their sexual features, giving them a look as if they're ready to fall on their own back at any moment.  Traditionally, they are completely unscarred and held to very high beauty standards, often completely unbloodied and looking as if they just stepped out of a fresh shower.  The primary emphasis is in _readiness to have sex_.  If a man is presented in the same picture, he is typically either presented as an equal, or as someone the female is attempting to seduce, with again the emphasis being on sex.

Want to make it _truly_ equal?  Imagine this picture of Conan the Barbarian:  He stands next to the bodies of the dead, twisting his now small waist to present both backside and his chest.  His lips are full and slightly parted to shoe both increase sexualized blood flow and shortness of breath.  His body is gleaming and oiled without a trace of dirt or grime on it, his hair rich and flowing behind him.  His loincloth very obviously stands out from his large and...well.  _You get the idea.

_But we don't see that picture of the male barbarian, do we?  No, only of the _female_ barbarian.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 8, 2010)

shidaku said:


> I just want to take a quick second to point out here that these questions in particular are actually sex-neutral when it comes to RPGs.  That studly behemoth of a loin-cloth-wrapped man and that bountiful beauty of a chain-mail bikini-clad woman are the same.




Depends on:

 (a) whether male players want to play the studly behemoth of a loin-cloth-wrapped man and female players want to play the bountiful beauty of a chain-mail bikini-clad woman 

And

(b) If so, whether the system supports both as equally viable PCs.

IME the problem is not that playing either is badwrongfun or that male and female gamers don't want to play either (or both); problems and resentment come when the only role for the  bountiful beauty of a chain-mail bikini-clad woman is as an NPC hanging off the studly behemoth of a loin-cloth-wrapped man's leg or arm.  I've experienced some trouble with the more Gygaxian settings (more naturalistic, late medieval, more socially defined roles) whereas many female players seem very keen on playing Belit/Valeria/Red Sonja types in a more open, Conanesque setting.  I think it's deprotagonisation that is the big potential problem, not PCs who look like Schwarzenegger or Nielsen.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 8, 2010)

As to the questions, in order:

Yes, yes, no, no, yes, yes, my games already work this way, yes, and yes.

I think a more interesting question to ask since many people here are DMs: how many female NPCs do you have who are not _expressedly female_?  That is to say, how many random run of the mill NPCs do you have who are both a) female, and b) their gender is not a particular point of their character?


----------



## S'mon (Aug 8, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Want to make it _truly_ equal?  Imagine this picture of Conan the Barbarian:  He stands next to the bodies of the dead, twisting his now small waist to present both backside and his chest.  His lips are full and slightly parted to shoe both increase sexualized blood flow and shortness of breath.  His body is gleaming and oiled without a trace of dirt or grime on it, his hair rich and flowing behind him.  His loincloth very obviously stands out from his large and...well.  _You get the idea.
> 
> _But we don't see that picture of the male barbarian, do we?  No, only of the _female_ barbarian.




Look at romance novel covers, and you'll see female-gaze depictions of the male heroic character.   They bear some resemblance to your description, and some obvious differences.  What matters is that though 'strong', they are clearly there for the woman - the female reader and the female protagonist.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 9, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Yes and no.  It's complicated.
> 
> Barbarian men and fantasy stylized men are hyper-masculine.  The emphasis is on their muscle structure, their biceps, large broadened shoulders, thick bodyset.  The traditional barbarian man has a high lifted gaze, a very grounded stance.  Traditionally he is very scarred and, well, _not_ attractive, covered in grim and blood.  The primary emphasis is in determination and strength.  If a woman is presented in the same picture, she's in a state of supplication, while the male typically ignores her.



If you're arguing that hyper-masculinity is not also hyper sexuality, then you're fighting a losing battle.  Those broad shoulders, that muscled chest, those strong arms and legs, they're all just as sexual as those wide hips, large breasts and full lips.  They may not be perhaps YOUR particular tastes, but if you look around at what generally defines a man sexually, it's a variety of large muscles, a strong jaw and so on.  Look at women's romance novels(generally exclusively written by women), you don't see scrawny little nerds there on the cover, you seen Bendar the Barbarian! or Jacob the biker!  or Frank the gunslinger.  Hyper-masculinity IS hyper-sexuality for men, you cannot separate the two.  If you need an example with better visuals, watch an Old Spice commercial.



> Barbarian..



I'm breaking this apart for two reasons, which I'll get to below.



> ... and fantasy styled women are hyper-_sexualized_.  The emphasis is on their sexual features, large breasts, plush lips, widened eyes, bizarrely thing waist.  They have a swayed back to better show off their sexual features, giving them a look as if they're ready to fall on their own back at any moment.  Traditionally, they are completely unscarred and held to very high beauty standards, often completely unbloodied and looking as if they just stepped out of a fresh shower.  The primary emphasis is in _readiness to have sex_.  If a man is presented in the same picture, he is typically either presented as an equal, or as someone the female is attempting to seduce, with again the emphasis being on sex.



This is something I think the "games sexualized women!" argument often fails to grasp, in that there are a wide variety of what women should look like given the situation.  Seductresses such as witches, rogues, and con-women have very sexualized bodies because they are playing to sexist ideas of men, that men want large breasts, long legs, and eventually sex.  Barbarians may be busty, but this is not a given, many barbarian women are only slightly feminized versions of barbarian men.  They retain many traditional feminine features, but combine it with traditional masculine ones.  Making for tall, gruff, muscular, "bear-your-face-in, then have sex" women.  You often see this in female orcs, trolls, and other non-human races.



> Want to make it _truly_ equal?  Imagine this picture of Conan the Barbarian:  He stands next to the bodies of the dead, twisting his now small waist to present both backside and his chest.  His lips are full and slightly parted to shoe both increase sexualized blood flow and shortness of breath.  His body is gleaming and oiled without a trace of dirt or grime on it, his hair rich and flowing behind him.  His loincloth very obviously stands out from his large and...well.  _You get the idea._



_
But that's not really equal because what makes a person ideal for sex is different for men than it is for women.  A sweaty, dirty, blood covered muscle-barbarian coming into his cave from the cold with the carcass of a lion on his back indicates readiness for sex just as much as you described for women above.

_


> But we don't see that picture of the male barbarian, do we?  No, only of the _female_ barbarian.



Because those features aren't sexually attractive on men.

The whole reason that these stylized bodies are considered "bad" is because they are unreachable goals for women.  At the very heart of the matter, it is telling girls that they will only be acceptable if they look like this, and that is bad.  The SAME is true for depictions of men.  It is telling young boys and men that this is how men need to be in order to be acceptable.  If you are not this then you are wrong and you are bad.  And that is equally as bad.


----------



## Smoss (Aug 9, 2010)

1. Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between  the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?
My female gamers and I often talk about the stereotypes.  Usually making fun of them.  For my games I have my own setting and work towards a real feel.  Sometimes it means someone (NPC) is a sexist pig.  Sometimes it means finding prostitutes in the area.  We explore mature themes but we don't really make distinctions.

2. Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers?
Many of my female gamers roll their eyes at that crap.  We have fun pointing out art in some books where the women are actually in realistic proportions.  Usually in great (if fake) shock.  Considering the love for manga among some of these women, it is fun to point out the even more hugely silly proportions in some of those...  

3. Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?
No need.  I know a few dozen gamer girls.  I could not imagine being a recruiter anyway.  I can just imagine how things might go by asking random girls - "Ever tried roleplaying?"

4. Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?
No need.  Pretty much if the girls want community they will find it faster than I could point it out.  Most are pretty internet savvy ya know...  

5. Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs?
I'd be willing to let a publisher publish my setting and rules.  Maybe my novels too.  Then they would HAVE their strong positive females.  But that is my selfish side coming through.  Maybe they should just hire me...  

6. Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs?
The only way I am connected to any youngsters and gaming is through various gamer friends who now have "gamer spawn".  They can raise their own kids to be gamers by themselves thank you very much.  If I end up having kids they certainly will have an equal chance.

7. Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids equally or females).
I created my own RPG system for the sole purpose of fitting my gaming style.  It just so happens that females tend to prefer my style as a generalization.  But certainly everyone is different.  Nearly all rulesets can attract women depending on their particular tastes.

8. Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts?
I rarely buy systems (3e, SW Saga, and Shadowrun 4 were it for me) and all of those were fairly equal (minus the atrocious 3e art in certain cases).  But really I bought games for the system.  I can not imagine buying any new systems in the future.  I like my own too much and nothing else has come close to meeting what *I* want.

9. Have you or AYWT actively discourage obvious and persistent sexism at your game table, e.g. don't laugh along with the jokes/ speak up if a female player appears uncomfortable with some of what's being said?
I would imagine so, but I don't expect that to be a problem.  People like that don't play at our tables - At least not for long.  The women will kill them with their own hands.  Don't mess with gamer gals.  Especially the ones I know and game with.  They know martial arts or are sharpshooters or otherwise deadly in their own rights.  They don't need me to protect them and would probably roll their eyes at me if I tried.
----------------------
Smoss
http://sites.google.com/site/doulairen/


----------



## knightofround (Aug 9, 2010)

I would say that in D&D, as with everything else, sex sells. I think it's ludicrous to believe that D&D stereotypes female sexuality to the exclusion of male sexuality.

Seriously, browse through the romance section...specifically look for historical fantasy novels...and tell me that the way male characters are displayed on the covers are not identical to the way that D&D displays them.

The issue with women in D&D is not how they are physically drawn, imo, it's how they're portrayed. Until 3E, it was very rare that females be portrayed as adventurers. They were always brainless damsels in distress, or blood-sucking black widows. 3E made some progress against those stereotypes...both pathfinder and 4E has pushed it even further.

Is there still room for progress? Of course. But change is happening, and its moving in the right direction.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Aug 9, 2010)

Bah. More PC jibber-jabber.

Players at my game just need to be cool, and someone with whom I could socialize with as a friend apart from the game. That's all. Girls or guys the situation remains the same.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 9, 2010)

My two cents. Honest, just little quick ones before I get to bed:

1. Imagine the following. You are playing Call of Cthulhu. The line "Things man was not meant to know." comes up. The women around the table start snickering. One of them says "Well, that's it boys. I guess the rest is up to us." Everyone bursts out laughing. Good times.

2. If you ever have trouble coming up with proper female characters try and pick up Tanith Lee's amazing _Women as Demons: The Male Perception of Women through Space and Time_. It'll blow your mind.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2010)

jonesy said:


> The line "Things man was not meant to know." comes up.




'Man' includes both old English Wer-men and Wife-men - Males and Females - Men and Wo-Men.  The idea that Man/Men is exclusive of Women is very recent.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 9, 2010)

nedjer said:


> The OP on 'Girls (females) in D&D/ Roleplaying' manages to/ sets out to completely skip the question of attitudes to, (and attitudes about doing anything about attitudes to), women TRPG players. Time to 'fess up' properly:




I'm going to go with "Women." I married one.


 _Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between  the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?_
I think sexism is a big issue, not only for the future of women in gaming, but for the well-being of men and our future generations of humans.
 _Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers?_
Potentially, sure. I don't think there is a problem with fantastic imagery and many women find images of beautiful women appealing. The key is that men and women have equal access to fantasy. Some images are realistic, some unrealistic; the key is that women should be able to see, in representations of female characters, some admirable and fully human role models.
 _Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?_
Sure, simply because I know other groups may go out of their way not to recruit women into games, squandering a valuable human research.
 _Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?_
No. Joining a community is a personal decision, one which carries a certain level of commitment. Further, I would not consider most online RPG communities, include this website, generally suitable for women without thick skin and a fair amount of political awareness. Most RPG communities are not truly welcoming places to women.
 _Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs?_
Yes. Most recently, I added my voice to a choir suggesting that the way Seoni was represented in Pathfinder seemed very different than other characters, encouraged stereotypes associated with eating disorders, and appeared not only impractical for adventuring, but as a fantasy character, just didn't look powerful and credible. The staff basically rolled their eyes and engaged in some light, privileged mockery.
 _Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs?_
Sure.
 _Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids equally or females)._
I don't consider that relevant. The idea is to show women how the activities might appeal to them, not to manufacture an experience. 
 _Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts?_
I'll avoid some of the worst offenders in terms of gratuity. 
 _Have you or AYWT actively discourage obvious and persistent sexism at your game table, e.g. don't laugh along with the jokes/ speak up if a female player appears uncomfortable with some of what's being said?_
Yes.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 9, 2010)

S'mon said:


> 'Man' includes both old English Wer-men and Wife-men - Males and Females - Men and Wo-Men.  The idea that Man/Men is exclusive of Women is very recent.



The middle-ages are recent? The english forms separated between years 1500-1700.

Anyway, you can't justify modern usage of words with the old usage. Or do you still use the word 'girl' to refer to young children of both sexes? That would be akward.


----------



## arscott (Aug 9, 2010)

knightofround said:


> Seriously, browse through the romance section...specifically look for historical fantasy novels...and tell me that the way male characters are displayed on the covers are not identical to the way that D&D displays them.



Baloney.  Men on the covers of romance novels are prettier, cleaner, and generally slimmer that you're likely to see in a D&D book.

Male D&D characters usually project power.  Romance novel characters trade much of that power for grace.  The only place you're likely to see that much grace in a male figure in D&D art is with elves--and it's no coincidence that most D&D elf art is female.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 9, 2010)

1. Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between  the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?

Depends on whether or not I see something as sexist or not I guess. If I see it as being sexist I probably will, If I dont I wont. 


2.  Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers? 

Yes. It's not going to stop me from running or playing the games I want to play but sure I can accept that. 

3.  Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?

No. I care about having good players. 


4.  Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?

Nope. I gotta say though if I WERE going to encourage / target a specific group to play RPG's (not that I'm going to) it would be black and brown people in general male AND female. 


5.  Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs?

Nope. If I find their portrayals of women (or any group for that matter) offensive I simply dont give that publisher my money. 


6.  Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs?

Unfortunately not yet. My 8 year old has shown some interest though...

7.  Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids equally or females).

All of those things? NO. Some of those things where it fits and isnt forced? Yes.


8.  Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts?

Nope. If it's offensive to me then I dont buy it. But what you consider sexist and I consider sexist may differ by a wide margin. I dont consider the art in Pathfinder offensive or sexist. But someone in this very thread seems to have taken acception to the dress of one of their iconics. I dont see it. 


9.  Have you or AYWT actively discourage obvious and persistent sexism at your game table, e.g. don't laugh along with the jokes/ speak up if a female player appears uncomfortable with some of what's being said?

Yes / No, here's why: If what's going on at the table is offensive to me I'm gonna open my mouth and say something. If I say something that in hindsight I feel might have been offensive / insensitive to one of my players, I'll address it and apologize. If something that's going on that the table that's offensive to one of my players, but I dont pick up on it immediately or at all, then THEY need to say something. Everyone's sensitivity to certain things is different.


----------



## S'mon (Aug 9, 2010)

jonesy said:


> The middle-ages are recent? .




More like 1990.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 9, 2010)

S'mon said:


> More like 1990.



Okay, you just lost me completely. What are you talking about? One moment you're talking about the Wer-men and Wife-men forms, and the next you're three hundred years in the future. It's like there's a whole conversation missing from the middle. Are you talking about the opposition to the usage of man to refer to women? Or what? Throw me a bone, dude.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 9, 2010)

nedjer said:


> T
> 
> Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between  the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?






Yes, but.... (there's always a, "but")...

I have a small issue with use of the definite article: "..._the_ positive portrayal...".  As if there's only one, and someone out there has decided what it is, and Powers help you if you aren't in line with that decision.  

If we're about discussion, and coming to realize that sexism and positive portrayals are both complex and subtle beasts, then I'm with you.



ProfessorCirno said:


> Y
> Want to make it _truly_ equal?  Imagine this picture of Conan the Barbarian:  He stands next to the bodies of the dead, twisting his now small waist to present both backside and his chest.  His lips are full and slightly parted to shoe both increase sexualized blood flow and shortness of breath.  His body is gleaming and oiled without a trace of dirt or grime on it, his hair rich and flowing behind him.  His loincloth very obviously stands out from his large and...well.  You get the idea.




Well, that'd make them the same depiction.  That only makes them equally sexualized if we accept the premise that men and women (as abroad generalization) find the same visual cues sexually attractive.

I think that assumption is weak.  I'm not a psychologist, so I cannot point to studies, but that premise runs counter to my personal understanding.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 9, 2010)

Am I the only one who has no idea what the acronym (I presume it's an acronym) AYWT is supposed to mean?

EDIT:  Ah, nevermind.  Read the OP more carefully and got it.

Answers forthcoming...

*Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals? *

I'm not 100% sure what this question is asking.  Am I willing to classify depictions of women by how sexist I think they are?  Frankly, I'm not that interested in the isssue.

*Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers? *

I think it's a moot point, because I don't accept the assumption that those kinds of pictures _are_ really all that consistant.  I can't remember seeing one in years.

*Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group? *

I go out of my way to recruit and encourage people who I think will be fun to game with.  There have been some women and girls in that list of people, but I've never done so specifically _because_ they were women.  That would indeed have been sexist.

*Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities? *

No.  Then again, I've never gone out of my way to encourage _anyone_ to join an RPG community.

*Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs? *

No, I have no interest in contacting any publisher over this issue.

*Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs? *

No, I haven't.  Unless you count "separate but equal" opportunities.  Frankly, the kinds of games I play in and enjoy most are ones that are probably not really appropriate for youngsters to play in.  I wouldn't invite my kids to play with my regular group.  I would, however, (and do, on occasion) run other games specifically for them, and so do some of the other guys in the group who have kids old enough to appreciate the game.

*Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids equally or females). *

Yes, I do that... but not to encourage kids or females.  Frankly, I run games the way I like them, and then try to make sure that my group is like-minded enough to like it too.

*Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts? *

That has never been a decision factor in any single RPG purchase I've ever made.

*Have you or AYWT actively discourage obvious and persistent sexism at your game table, e.g. don't laugh along with the jokes/ speak up if a female player appears uncomfortable with some of what's being said? *

Moot point.  I've never been at a table where that was a problem.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Aug 9, 2010)

deleted


----------



## jasin (Aug 9, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> [*]  _Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs?_
> Yes. Most recently, I added my voice to a choir suggesting that the way Seoni was represented in Pathfinder seemed very different than other characters, encouraged stereotypes associated with eating disorders, and appeared not only impractical for adventuring, but as a fantasy character, just didn't look powerful and credible. The staff basically rolled their eyes and engaged in some light, privileged mockery.



What does "light, privileged mockery" mean?


----------



## Dragonbait (Aug 9, 2010)

1. _Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between  the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?_ Until recently I've hadn't thought about it. But after observing the "wide" array of female personalities in most games I tried to make more female NPCs in positions other than damsels in distress and busty barmaids.

2.  _Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers?_ I've laughed at those. I don't mind the bikini-clad women strolling through the snowfields alongside loincloth barbarians.

3.  _Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?_ Encourage, yes.

4.  _Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?_ Not females in particular.

5.  _Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs?_ I'd say yes, but I know I have never done so, so I'd be lying.

6.  _Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs?_ Absolutely. I'm going to try to introduce my niece to gaming once she is old enough!

7.  _Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids equally or females)._ No in regards to catering supposed gender preferences. I try to make settings diverse by default.

8.  _Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts?_ Unfortunately, no. I have purchased some books after I looked through and laughed at the women's armor design.. I feel like if I start doing that, I'd never be able to buy ANY fantasy game product..

[*]  _Have you or AYWT actively discourage obvious and persistent sexism at your game table, e.g. don't laugh along with the jokes/ speak up if a female player appears uncomfortable with some of what's being said?_ I'll try?


----------



## nedjer (Aug 9, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Yes, but.... (there's always a, "but")...
> 
> I have a small issue with use of the definite article: "..._the_ positive portrayal...".  As if there's only one, and someone out there has decided what it is, and Powers help you if you aren't in line with that decision.
> 
> If we're about discussion, and coming to realize that sexism and positive portrayals are both complex and subtle beasts, then I'm with you.




Just my clumsy grammar there 

The discussion's where I'm at. So far, there seem to be three main, reasonable views offered pretty honestly:

It's not that relevant - I've enough to be getting on with running my game.

I don't have a problem here, because I adapt gameplay to my group by looking for a reasonable concensus. If the players and GM like action they get action, if the players and GM like Vogon poetry they get  . . .

If someone's out of order in front of me I'll speak up. That's not restricted to gender.

To me, that suggests it's worth looking at how all potential players are welcomed or invited into the hobby, rather than any particular group. You have more experienced GMs in here than anywhere else on the planet, and you could talk more about how you go about getting new players into Vogon poetry or, disappointingly, compromise with a few sonnets. The works of the esteemed Mr Weem come to mind immediately.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 9, 2010)

Golarion is an interesting case.  

It's most comparable to Forgotten Realms, where all the female deities were gods of seduction, cats, being sexy, being extra bitchy, being Not-Mother-Earth-No-Really!, etc, etc.  They're "women" first, deities second.

And then in Golarion, the two major paladin deities are both female, and they're expressedly valorous and powerful deities first, "women" second.


----------



## Insight (Aug 9, 2010)

Another point to consider before this thread gets locked.  In my experience, female gamers sometimes play those stereotyped female roles in RPGs.  The reason?  That's all they think they can play.  Many are delighted to learn that they can play their female character any way they want, not just the breast-heaving damsel in distress.

Another related issue.  Guys playing female characters and women playing male characters.  This sometimes makes people uncomfortable.  Others have no problem gender switching like that.  What is it within a player (of either gender) more or less comfortable with this idea?


----------



## jonesy (Aug 9, 2010)

Insight said:


> Another related issue.  Guys playing female characters and women playing male characters.  This sometimes makes people uncomfortable.  Others have no problem gender switching like that.  What is it within a player (of either gender) more or less comfortable with this idea?



One plays roleplaying games to play roles. To be what they, in the real world, could never be. Playing the opposite gender is along those same lines.

The usual reasons for why some find it uncomfortable are the fears of not "doing it right". Of making a fool of themselves, or of insulting the other players (by not knowing what actually would insult them), or fear of having the other players equate what the character does to what the player would want the other players to think of him (and thus compromising the gender image that the player would normally wish to convey to others).


(Edit: or even a fear of conveying to the others that the opposite gender image you would play would turn out to be a really offensive stereotype focused entirely on the gender thus making you look like an idiot.)


----------



## nedjer (Aug 9, 2010)

Insight said:


> Another point to consider before this thread gets locked.  In my experience, female gamers sometimes play those stereotyped female roles in RPGs.  The reason?  That's all they think they can play.  Many are delighted to learn that they can play their female character any way they want, not just the breast-heaving damsel in distress.
> 
> Another related issue.  Guys playing female characters and women playing male characters.  This sometimes makes people uncomfortable.  Others have no problem gender switching like that.  What is it within a player (of either gender) more or less comfortable with this idea?




Hopefully we can continue to live the dream of reasoned debate for a little longer - that's why they were 'doing' questions, instead of 'tell me your anecdotes about a women gamer questions'.

Good point about how new players, in general, might slip into what's expected of them - perhaps as a way of learning the ropes, but also maybe because they're nudged in particular directions. I prefer skill systems for character gen but AD&D's many defined classes are possibly an advantage there. As there's a wide choice of 'presets' for a new player to try out while getting used to in-game characterisation.


----------



## Kingreaper (Aug 10, 2010)

> Have you or are you  willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between  the positive portrayal of  women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?



Sexist portrayals are irritating, and dull... that enough distinction?





> Have you or  AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women  strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is  potentially discouraging for some female gamers?



And some male gamers. One of my friends is scared of breasts.
It's hunk-alert. It's a combination of cheesecake and beefcake. Some people are put off by one or the other, some aren't. It doesn't really go by gender lines.


> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?



Why? I don't go out of my way to get women playing any more than I do for guys.

IOW I'll do it when I don't have enough groups 





> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?



No more so than I do for guys.

IOW I'll do it when they don't have enough gaming groups.


> Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs?



Nope. Can't be assed.





> Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs?



Youngsters? I don't fancy gaming with preteens. They aren't silly enough.


> Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or  balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and  novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids  equally or females).



So, sexism is bad except when you're doing it?

I play with characterisation, exploration and investigation, as well as combat. So do all my brunette roleplayer friends, and all my blonde roleplayer friends.*

I play the game I like, with people who also like that game. Their gender is incidental.







> Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts?



It irritates me, so I'll tend not to buy sexist books. Does that count?



> Have you or AYWT actively discourage obvious and  persistent sexism at your game table, e.g. don't laugh along with the  jokes/ speak up if a female player appears uncomfortable with some of  what's being said?



Both my roleplay groups are at least 50% women at all times.

EDIT: *the redhead just likes combat.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 10, 2010)

Insight said:


> Another point to consider before this thread gets locked.  In my experience, female gamers sometimes play those stereotyped female roles in RPGs.  The reason?  That's all they think they can play.  Many are delighted to learn that they can play their female character any way they want, not just the breast-heaving damsel in distress.



Perhaps I've never met someone THAT new to RPing, but to be honest, I've never met a girl or woman who thought her only role could be the top-heavy temptress.



> Another related issue.  Guys playing female characters and women playing male characters.  This sometimes makes people uncomfortable.  Others have no problem gender switching like that.  What is it within a player (of either gender) more or less comfortable with this idea?



Personally, I think it's fun, my girlfriend and I often play opposite sex characters, and I've never seen anyone legitimately get offended by this.  I get an odd look from my guy-friends like "srsly you want to play a chick?" and the girls only complain if I am sexist in my playing of a female role.

Most of the time when I play a female character I treat it like I would any other character, I give them a personality, I give them a background, and I treat them like a normal person(or elf, or dwarf or half-dragon/demon/nightmare/cuddlebunny), and nobody ever objects to it.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 10, 2010)

jasin said:


> What does "light, privileged mockery" mean?




Basically, this:

Paizo’s response to criticism of their portrayal of women « The Seven-Sided Die

http://seankreynolds.livejournal.com/73322.html


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 10, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Basically, this:
> 
> Paizo’s response to criticism of their portrayal of women « The Seven-Sided Die
> 
> seankreynolds - Sexism and Racism in gaming art




Not only is the person calling them sexist, but racist as well, the original article, as well as the more recent one both make references to the fact that this "pinup" was white, and their comparison was a naked black slave under an oppressive white santa.  Needless to say, there are FAR more issues at hand with this particular writer than meets the eye.  Even if it was a respectable image, say, a jolly old santa and wife, I suspect the complaint would have been about how there were no characters of color.  Had the Santa and wife been mixed(say, black white), then there would be a question of why the woman has to be white.  If both races were non-white, the question would likely be why they're celebrating a white holiday like christmas and not a racial holiday like Kawanza or Ramadan.

While the author by claims that this is not the case, the fact that they're making these arguments meants they want to show that in their mind, sexist portrayls of women are tantamount to slavery.  Anyone with experience in arguments knows that people who are quick to use slavery or nazi's in the argument are people who are less interested in actual dialog and more about winning.

To add to this, the author added nothing in the way of constructive critique, simply just started yelling at them at their horrid sexist ways.  In fact, she takes great pains to select the most asinine comments posted on the original blog as a reference in the second.  In fact she even responds to the nearly 10 comments posted immediately on her blog that are quite reasonable and well-defined rebuttals, taking her time to attack several of them with double-edged comments, such as "you made a good post, but you used to be a troll, so you're wrong."  She even mentions that her outfit is similar to Seoni's normal outfit, and yet, NOW it's sexist and racist.  

As I said before, there's more to her argument than she's letting on.  And out of curiosity, I went and looked up images of the character.  Sometimes there are  good reasons to cry foul, however, to complain about this ONE depiction of the character and NOT complain about her normal appearance?  Motives, somebody has them.


IMO, lets turn this argument on it's head, what if it was a male character, wearing a loin-cloth made from a stocking and a santa hat?  Would that still be sexist?  Would women still be complaining?  If men didn't complain would it then NOT be sexist?  Is an image wrong so long as even one person complains about it?


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 10, 2010)

I object to most depictions of Seoni, so I'm going to go with, "The art is sexist, she doesn't look much like an adventurer."

Really, the meat is here:



			
				Sean K Reynolds said:
			
		

> It's pretty silly. I mean, there is sexism in the world, and racism. And it's really easy to see obvious negative examples of these things in gaming (several d20 companies were known for their hypervoluptuous scantily-dressed females on their cover art, for example, but *fortunately I can't think of any blatantly racist imagery in gaming books*).




Emphasis mine. Oh, really, now?



> But to get offended by Seoni? I see more skin on the beach, and I'm talking San Diego, not Miami.




Of course, no one is saying skin=bad, so that makes this a strawman.



> Sure, you have the right to be offended (heck, I'm offended by hamburger ads that make fun of vegetarians). But if you're a Big Strong White Male who's getting offended about some very mild female pin-up art, aren't you really saying, "Ladies, I'm here to defend you, especially those of you too weak and meek to stand up for yourselves and admit that you're offended"? Isn't that really more offensive than the art in question? The fact that you think that women who are offended won't say so, and that you have to be their voice, their Knight in Shining Armor?




I don't even know what to say to this. Where is this projection coming from? 

The whole thing left a bad taste in my mouth. Don't get me wrong, I think Paizo is great people, but if I were a writer there, I would definitely have some things to say about awareness raising.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 10, 2010)

> I think a more interesting question to ask since many people here are DMs: how many female NPCs do you have who are not expressedly female? That is to say, how many random run of the mill NPCs do you have who are both a) female, and b) their gender is not a particular point of their character?




Well, most of my current NPC's are _children_, so their main point is that _they are children_, and also dying from evil moths. 

The main antagonist of my current adventure is a woman, but I blame the Greeks, there. Besides, she's primarily _harmful_. There's a lot of things more important than her femininity. Like, her elemental nature, her rivalry with Sehanine the Moon Goddess, and her cadre of dark servants. 

Anyway, most of the children in my current campaign have met with unfortunate fates, and I'm not sure the future looks much better for them, but I'm pretty sure that's not hiding some deep-seated hatred of orphans that I am camouflaging, so I'm going to go with the _don't read too much into your D&D game_ thing. 



> I object to most depictions of Seoni, so I'm going to go with, "The art is sexist, she doesn't look much like an adventurer."




Yeah, my gnome assassin doesn't look very practical for adventuring, either:







FWIW, I don't think Seoni is any more sexualized than that shirtless dude from Twilight. Of, for that matter, from the girl protagonist of Twilight. I guess what I'm saying is, teenagers think about sex a lot. I apparently think about clowns a lot. I...don't know what that says abut me, just don't let my girlfriend know.

There's a real hard divide between a sexual image and a sexist image, I think. I understand, though, that that divide is hotly contested.


----------



## evileeyore (Aug 10, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between  the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?
> Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers?
> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?
> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?
> ...




Short Answer:  No.




pawsplay said:


> I object to most depictions of Seoni, so I'm going to go with, "The art is sexist, she doesn't look much like an adventurer."




She looks exactly like the kinda women I'd like to have "adventures" with.


----------



## Wik (Aug 10, 2010)

Yeah.  I hate Paizo's art - men and women both, though... for the most part.  But then, those scantily clad images didn't really do anything for me after the age of, um, ten.  And before that, it was just "ooo!  Tee hee!"

I've been disliking the art in D&D since around 2000, though, so who am I to listen to?  There are relatively few WotC books that I would say are greatly illustrated... I think the Wheel of Time RPG is the only one that pops into my head at the moment.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Aug 10, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I object to most depictions of Seoni, so I'm going to go with, "The art is sexist, she doesn't look much like an adventurer."




That's one way of looking at it. My girlfriend and female gamers all love Seoni. They think it's a good depiction of how a "girly girl" can still be strong, confident and an adventurer. 

I can see how people would think it's sexist but I also don't presume to know better than my female friends either.


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 10, 2010)

I'm sad that Identity Politics didn't collapse with the rest of the Soviet Union back in like 1990. I game with people. People I agree with, and people I disagree with. People that have "innies" and people that have "outies". People who are white, and people who are black or native (one used to sometimes play the "I'm Mayan" card but she's alright). Theists and atheists. Ultra-rightists (Howdy! I'm Korgoth) and ultra-leftists (grrr...) and middle-of-the-roadists. Dopey-looking people (Howdy! I'm Korgoth) and hot-looking people. Smart people and... well OK we're all pretty smart.

Point is, it doesn't matter. If you can game together and be friends then who cares what your flavor text says. At the gaming table we get to set all that stuff aside and have fun together.

And art? Well I don't think we all agree on aesthetics, either. But as far as any women who are actually so fragile that they get emotionally disturbed by the depiction of a hawt chick in a chainmail bikini? I don't happen to game with any women who are that insecure, so it's not an issue. If someone for some reason brought out such a fantasy picture (hasn't ever happened that I recall... we've got gaming and BSing to do) then the gals I'm thinking of would generally respond with (1) saying yeah she's hot, (2) an amused snort, or (3) a counter-reference to beefcake.

It hasn't even occurred to me to be surprised at them having a sense of humor or the power of rational thought.

Mod Edit:  Ah, the old, "folks who don't agree with me are somehow mentally deficient or broken," argument.  Aside from being rhetorically weak sauce, this is also dismissive and more than a tad insulting.  Folks, I know some of you find this offensive, but please don't butt heads over it.  Thanks.  ~Umbran


----------



## Hussar (Aug 10, 2010)

Korgoth said:


> I'm sad that Identity Politics didn't collapse with the rest of the Soviet Union back in like 1990. I game with people. People I agree with, and people I disagree with. People that have "innies" and people that have "outies". People who are white, and people who are black or native (one used to sometimes play the "I'm Mayan" card but she's alright). Theists and atheists. Ultra-rightists (Howdy! I'm Korgoth) and ultra-leftists (grrr...) and middle-of-the-roadists. Dopey-looking people (Howdy! I'm Korgoth) and hot-looking people. Smart people and... well OK we're all pretty smart.
> 
> Point is, it doesn't matter. If you can game together and be friends then who cares what your flavor text says. At the gaming table we get to set all that stuff aside and have fun together.
> 
> ...




Isn't there a middle road to take though?  Between, "All Your Pics are Belong to Us" and "Suck it up Buttercup!"?  I mean, I think I can look at an image like this one:






and say that, "ayup, that's pretty exploitive."


----------



## Korgoth (Aug 10, 2010)

I would say that's a picture that both men _and_ women would laugh at. "Exploitative"? Only in the vaguest sense. Maybe to whoever posed for it, if they posed in a ridiculous costume such as that.

I thought we were talking about Frazetta girls showing some sideboob and barbarian keister. That there is just a joke, man.

You know, like this:


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 10, 2010)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Isn't there a middle road to take though? Between, "All Your Pics are Belong to Us" and "Suck it up Buttercup!"?




I personally side with "people get to decide for themselves what they find offensive."

I mean, these women seem pretty empowered, and there's all sorts of folks who find what they do exploitative by its very nature. They don't, though, and I generally believe that people get to decide for themselves when they feel exploited.

The picture seems pretty exploitative to me, but I know plenty of women who have found strange (strange to me, that is) things empowering. Baking. Childrearing. Quilting. Bearing their bodies in front of a leering crowd. Wearing a _hijab_. To decide for them that they are being exploited is condescending at best, and, paradoxically, frequently also sexist. Because people vary in their comfort levels for different things. My mom might not be caught dead with a needle and yarn, but she finds being a mother powerful, and one of my best friends might really love quilting, while a D&D player I've had might have a stellar science career, and my girlfriend might love doing burlesque, while my buddy in college will vigorously defend her right to wear a  headscarf. 

These are mutually exclusive in some cases (our career-focused science genius may be adamant against making any living thing in her womb), but that's what having a mind of your own means: you can't tell someone what they feel. They have to tell you. And it's going to be different for each person. Which means you can't come up with universal rules or even a middle ground for what is and is not okay. It's different for different people, because they are different people. 

It's like telling someone they're having badwrongfun with D&D. If someone enjoys skill challenges, they're not doing it wrong, they just have different feelings than I do, which is OK, because they're a different person.

Unless we're talking about _Twilight_. In that case, everyone should feel grossly exploited.

(Kidding, of course. )


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 10, 2010)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> That's one way of looking at it. My girlfriend and female gamers all love Seoni. They think it's a good depiction of how a "girly girl" can still be strong, confident and an adventurer.
> 
> I can see how people would think it's sexist but I also don't presume to know better than my female friends either.




Well, I object to most depictions of women in women's magazines, too, so I suspect I and your polling demographic may have different ideas as to what is healthy to women's self-acceptance. 

I am not against sex or nudity, nor do I object to breasts or buttocks in fantasy art. I just want to look at the context and see something positive. When I look at Seoni, and this is just my reaction, I think, "Glue pot, scoliosis, implants, eating disorder." If I think about it for more than a fraction of a second, I recall that the D&D player's handbook heroes didn't manage to produce a human female for several sets in a row. What does it say when all the women adventurers are exotic non-humans? 

Now, I'm sure there are real, all-natural women who bear more than a passing resemblance to Seoni, and I don't want to denigrate them or women of any kind of physique or feature, but Seoni's appearance was not chosen by accident. Further, her appearance does not represent anything like a universal ideal of beauty. Wittingly or no, she expresses cultural values that transmit a powerful thin ideal, exoticism, and fetishism. If fetishism is defined as the opposite of utility, Seoni's dress embodies it. It's unlikely her dress could keep her breasts _in_, much less warm or protected. She would have trouble walking down a Hollywood red carpent in that without showing some nip. 

I'm not denigrating fetishism, itself, either. Medievalism is a form of fetishism. I can deal with weapon fetishisim, elf fetishism, leather, boobs, whatever. But in Seoni, I see fetishism for weakness, vulnerability, and objectivism. In isolation, I don't have a problem for that, but in a fantasy character, supposedly not in a highly sexualized context, it is impossible to ignore the larger context. She's not a bad creation, she is simply a case study in a larger phenomenon. 

I don't think staring at dwarves in plate armor is going to stop any young man from running for Congress, but I think Seoni is an unfortunate object.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 10, 2010)

evileeyore said:


> She looks exactly like the kinda women I'd like to have "adventures" with.




And this is exactly the kind of post that demonstrates how women have difficulty being taken seriously as something other than bedroom furniture.


----------



## Hungry Like The Wolf (Aug 10, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I see fetishism for weakness, vulnerability, and objectivism




I think your post is a little bit extreme.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 10, 2010)

Hungry Like The Wolf said:


> I think your post is a little bit extreme.




It wasn't intended that way. I just wanted to be clear what I was identifying. Also, I meant "objectivisation," not objectivism. Seoni has only a tangential relationship to the philosophy of Ayn Rand.


----------



## arscott (Aug 10, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> FWIW, I don't think Seoni is any more sexualized than that shirtless dude from Twilight.



That's actually a great example.

See, Twilight is clearly a thing for girls.  Guys do not read the twilight books, or watch the twilight movies.  The men in twilight are clearly objects of sexual fantasy for the audience, and no straight men have any desire to be subject to that (heck, I'm a gay man and I refuse to touch those books).

the OP didn't tell us to feel bad because our RPGs portray women in sexist ways.  We were instead asked if we recognized that such portrayals are off putting to female gamers.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 10, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between  the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?



I know where the line is drawn, for me personally, yes.


> Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers?



I can see how it might put some women off, but just for the record *all* the women I've gamed with don't give one hoot, let alone two, about such depictions.


> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?



Not to be snotty, but I encourage gamers to join my gaming group. I don't go out of the way to attract females, because that would be decidedly creepy.


> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?



It's hard enough getting *anyone* at the table to engage in online discussion. In my experience, people either do, or do not want to join in; their gender, or the persuasive power of their DM, don't come into it.


> Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs?



Honestly, since it doesn't seem to bother the female gamers I know, I haven't.


> Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs?



I'd be happy to run a game for "youngsters", but I'd want to exercise due diligence about mixing such players with my adult friends. There is a point where our normal style of game would not be appropriate for young players. Not sure what this has to do with girls in role-playing, though; have we arrived at the true intent of the poll?


> Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids equally or females).



I always try and aim my campaigns at what the players like doing.


> Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts?



Possibly. I wouldn't be attracted to a product with egregiously erotic cover art, for example. I can't ever recall being turned off by anything to that extent, but my purchasing habits don't extend much beyond official product just at the moment.


> Have you or AYWT actively discourage obvious and persistent sexism at your game table, e.g. don't laugh along with the jokes/ speak up if a female player appears uncomfortable with some of what's being said?



I really don't have to. The women at my table are perfectly capable of asserting themselves in that respect!


----------



## jasin (Aug 10, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I am not against sex or nudity, nor do I object to breasts or buttocks in fantasy art. I just want to look at the context and see something positive. When I look at Seoni, and this is just my reaction, I think, "Glue pot, scoliosis, implants, eating disorder." If I think about it for more than a fraction of a second, I recall that the D&D player's handbook heroes didn't manage to produce a human female for several sets in a row. What does it say when all the women adventurers are exotic non-humans?



Seoni is human, isn't she? And if she isn't (she might be a half-elf?) the black female plate-clad paladin who grow up as a poor orphan certainly is.

Of course, you could say that this only shows that Paizo thinks black women are all butch low-class beggars, so eh.



> Now, I'm sure there are real, all-natural women who bear more than a passing resemblance to Seoni,








Two out of three ain't bad...


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 10, 2010)

> See, Twilight is clearly a thing for girls. Guys do not read the twilight books, or watch the twilight movies. The men in twilight are clearly objects of sexual fantasy for the audience, and no straight men have any desire to be subject to that (heck, I'm a gay man and I refuse to touch those books).




I don't mind being the object of an audience's sexual fantasy every once in a while. And I recognize the "star athlete vs. untamed male" archetypes rooting around in that core. I'm more offended by the horrible plotting and writing and pseudoreligious overtones than I am by the fact that fourteen year old girls and their mom are all a-twitter over some shirtless sixteen year old. I don't actually find it very offensive, personally. Maybe a little sad on the part of the mothers, is all. 



> the OP didn't tell us to feel bad because our RPGs portray women in sexist ways. We were instead asked if we recognized that such portrayals are off putting to female gamers.




I recognize that people have a right to be off-put by whatever they feel off-put by, and my game-tables are inclusive places, so I want to make it as little off-putting as possible to every player there. That's not something I think you can really control for outside of the individual player, though. There are women who find that underpants pirate above empowering because, hey, _she is a fickin' captain_, and she is clearly in control of that whole ship (with its phallic knobs), and she gets to do what she wants, which means wearing as little as possible in the warm tropical climates and still having he authority and power respected on the ship and feared on the high seas beyond. There are women who would be pretty offended by that underpants pirate. I'd be pretty offended by her, personally, but I don't like it when an artist uses cheap skin. In the former case, I play up that capatain's heroic qualities, in the latter case, I apologize, and either change the captain, or play down the her offensive qualities. 

I'm not really going to be able to know in advance if it's fine or not. The most I can do is consider my own reasoning for using it. That way, even if a player and I end up having different thresholds for it, I can at least give my reasons, apologize, and move on. Keep it in mind for the future, and only worry about getting rid of it now.

I believe that one of the risks you take in engaging with other humans is that you might possibly be offended. If that's not a risk worth taking, I don't know why you'd try something as social as a gametable, or even a house party.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 10, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Basically, this:
> 
> Paizo’s response to criticism of their portrayal of women « The Seven-Sided Die
> 
> seankreynolds - Sexism and Racism in gaming art



Posting LOL is "light, privileged mockery?"   That's "WTF is this guy's problem?".  Except more politely.

Frankly, anytime you've got Sean "Flaming Hippy" K. Reynolds saying that your sensitivity issues are Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, that should be a good barometer reading that the rest of the world _really_ doesn't know what in the world you're talking about.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 10, 2010)

arscott said:


> That's actually a great example.
> 
> See, Twilight is clearly a thing for girls.  Guys do not read the twilight books, or watch the twilight movies.  The men in twilight are clearly objects of sexual fantasy for the audience, and no straight men have any desire to be subject to that (heck, I'm a gay man and I refuse to touch those books).
> 
> the OP didn't tell us to feel bad because our RPGs portray women in sexist ways.  We were instead asked if we recognized that such portrayals are off putting to female gamers.





I've used this example before but just to piggy back off of what you used as an excellent example: D&D at least when I first started playing back in 1982 was and in may ways still is a very white male oriented game / hobby. I'm a black male. Yet despite not seeing anything that remotely resembling me I still wanted to play D&D. 

One of the reasons that I liked 3x was that the art depicted more than just white male (humans) as adventurers. Granted I still have no idea what race Redgar was but he wasn't the homogenous depiction of the strapping white guy with sword and armor or staff. 

To bring it back to gender and away from race, I do think, very surprisingly, that there hasn't been as many embarrassing depictions of race than there have of gender. The thing is there are depictions of sweaty strapping bare chested d00ds with muscles wielding their swords and such. And to say that that's not sexualized and exploitive is frankly making excuses for a double standard. I'm sure that there are gay guys who are looking at the art and liking it the same way there are lesbians who are looking at the cheesecake and liking it. 

Not too mention that there are straight guys looking at that same bare chested d00d and going "That guy is the personification of AWESOME! I want a body like that!" Does that mean that their self esteem is damaged? I know that when I was a kid I didn't want a body like Schwarzenegger, I wanted a body like Bruce Lee. 

I guess what I'm saying is the same thing that everyone else is saying. Everyone's threshold for what is offensive is different. I'm sure if D&D were full of sambo and mammy images I wouldn't be on this board right now either. So it's a little complicated in terms of the sexualization of these images. I like them, to a point. But I dont like being told that I'm some sort of whoremaster or deviant for appreciating the female form. I'm a straight guy, I like women. All the more I dont see anyone admonishing lesbians for enjoying the same things that I like. If you're gonna lace me, you sure as hell better be lacing into them as well...


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 10, 2010)

GAH! Double Post!


----------



## Hussar (Aug 10, 2010)

> I guess what I'm saying is the same thing that everyone else is saying. Everyone's threshold for what is offensive is different. I'm sure if D&D were full of sambo and mammy images I wouldn't be on this board right now either. So it's a little complicated in terms of the sexualization of these images. I like them, to a point. But I dont like being told that I'm some sort of whoremaster or deviant for appreciating the female form. I'm a straight guy, I like women. All the more I dont see anyone admonishing lesbians for enjoying the same things that I like. If you're gonna lace me, you sure as hell better be lacing into them as well...




Yeah, it really is a complex issue.  Is X exploitive is something that not a whole lot of people are going to agree on.  At least at the extremes (Frazetta is a good example above) we can likely come to some degree of agreement.  And, no, I don't think that fantasy art needs to be 100% sexless.  That's not going to work either.  Going the anime route of genderless characters is not what I'd like to see at all.

But, let's not ignore the issue either and sweep it under the carpet.  Our chosen genre - Speculative Fiction - has been a white, male dominated genre for the better part of its history.  To the point where female writers well into the mid-20th century had to write under male names.  Recognizing that SF and Fantasy has not exactly covered itself in glory in the past when it comes to social issues isn't going to hurt anyone.  At least recognize that there can be an issue and perhaps a dialogue can follow.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 10, 2010)

jasin said:


>



For people who don't know Jenny Poussin, that's actually quite a lot of clothes she's wearing there.


----------



## arscott (Aug 10, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> One of the reasons that I liked 3x was that the art depicted more than just white male (humans) as adventurers. Granted I still have no idea what race Redgar was but he wasn't the homogenous depiction of the strapping white guy with sword and armor or staff.



Redgar, IIRC was intentionally of indistinct race--a compromise between the designers--who were pushing very hard for a set of racially-and-gender-diverse iconics, and the marketing team who wanted a big strong white dude to put on the cover.







> I'm sure that there are gay guys who are looking at the art and liking it the same way there are lesbians who are looking at the cheesecake and liking it.



See that's the thing.  There's such a thing as beefcake.  But the bare chested dudes in the art?  They're not beefcake.  There's a world of difference between, for example, the guy on the cover of Grim Tales and the guy on the cover of a Harlequin Romance.


----------



## arscott (Aug 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, let's not ignore the issue either and sweep it under the carpet.  Our chosen genre - Speculative Fiction - has been a white, male dominated genre for the better part of its history.  To the point where female writers well into the mid-20th century had to write under male names.



Mid 20th century?  The "K" in J.K. Rowling is short for "I made up these initials so my potential readers won't realize I'm a woman".


----------



## Krensky (Aug 10, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> [Seoni's] appearance does not represent anything like a universal ideal of beauty. Wittingly or no, she expresses cultural values that transmit a powerful thin ideal, exoticism, and fetishism. If fetishism is defined as the opposite of utility, Seoni's dress embodies it. It's unlikely her dress could keep her breasts _in_, much less warm or protected. She would have trouble walking down a Hollywood red carpent in that without showing some nip.
> 
> I'm not denigrating fetishism, itself, either. Medievalism is a form of fetishism. I can deal with weapon fetishisim, elf fetishism, leather, boobs, whatever. But in Seoni, I see fetishism for weakness, vulnerability, and objectivism. In isolation, I don't have a problem for that, but in a fantasy character, supposedly not in a highly sexualized context, it is impossible to ignore the larger context. She's not a bad creation, she is simply a case study in a larger phenomenon.




I think what you're seeing has more to do with you then the art. While what you're talking about undeniably exists in SF&F art and in RPG art, this isn't a good target to go after. In fact, getting worked up and ranting over something as inoffensive as Seoni's attire and the Holiday card is likely counter-productive because it just pushes people who might or do agree with you on large, important issues regarding gender equality away or dismiss you as a kook.



pawsplay said:


> And this is exactly the kind of post that demonstrates how women have difficulty being taken seriously as something other than bedroom furniture.




Strange, I hear worse from women almost every day. Lighten up.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Isn't there a middle road to take though?  Between, "All Your Pics are Belong to Us" and "Suck it up Buttercup!"?  I mean, I think I can look at an image like this one:
> 
> _(...snip pic...)_
> 
> and say that, "ayup, that's pretty exploitive."




Thank you Hussar, that pirate picture makes a pretty good example for something I meant about complexity and subtlety in sexism.  Sexism is the belief or attitude that one gender or sex is inferior to, less competent, or less valuable than the other, right?

Now, in some of the older, classic sword and sorcery artwork, the woman shows a lot of skin, and is submissive in posture - the classic "hero stands on the hill, muscles flexed, the damsel is curled on the ground by his leg" pose.  I can easily see that one as casting the woman as inferior.

But that pirate, however much skin she's showing, is also the captain.  She has the rank, the gun, the money, and the dragon: she has power.  There is nothing weak about that woman.  The way she's dressed is _silly_, unrealistic for actually doing her job, but it is depicting a strong woman as something that should be attractive.

Should this be seen as a problem?


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 10, 2010)

arscott said:


> Mid 20th century?  The "K" in J.K. Rowling is short for "I made up these initials so my potential readers won't realize I'm a woman".



Actually, that's not entirely true.  She didn't have any problem lining up publishing writing as Joane Rowling, but Bloomburg, her publisher, thought that the percieved target audience, i.e., young boys, might be leery of reading a book written by a woman.

So actually your example doesn't really prove what you think it proves at all.


----------



## evileeyore (Aug 10, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> And this is exactly the kind of post that demonstrates how people have difficulty being taken seriously as something other than furniture.




Fixed it for my views on everyone.




jasin said:


> Two out of three ain't bad...




High heals are not meant for outdoor adventuring...



Oh right.


----------



## Krensky (Aug 10, 2010)

evileeyore said:


> High heals are not meant for outdoor adventuring...
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right.




Ignoring the pun...

It's worth mentioning for those unfamiliar that Seoni has never (as far as I can tell or remember) been shown in heels.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 10, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Actually, that's not entirely true.  She didn't have any problem lining up publishing writing as Joane Rowling, but Bloomburg, her publisher, thought that the percieved target audience, i.e., young boys, might be leery of reading a book written by a woman.
> 
> So actually your example doesn't really prove what you think it proves at all.




Does it really matter if she chose this or her publisher?  The point is, someone along the line decided that a female writer wasn't what young men would want to read.  Kinda like Andre Norton.  Actually, a LOT like Andre Norton.

It does show that we haven't maybe come as far as we'd like to think.

Umbran - while it is true that she is in a position of power, the Piratical Lingerie outfit is a bit much.  I mean, look at female pirate depictions in recent Hollywood productions.  Either Gina Davis or that woman from the Pirates of the Carribean movies whose name I can never remember don't exactly walk around in bikinis as I recall.


----------



## nedjer (Aug 10, 2010)

I took my rant about the original OP 'off campus' for a blog post, as I 'disagreed' with the way the other OP had been seeking to link 'Storytelling games' and other 'ungodly' activities to 'girl gamers'.

Having said my piece on that I wasn't sure where I'd draw any exact 'lines' on images, because it's so much to do with context. On reconsidering the images I referred to at the time, I've kind of worked out/ working out my own idea of what I consider OK. Here are three fantasy images - do you 'guys' see a distinction between any of them?


----------



## Krensky (Aug 10, 2010)

nedjer said:


> I took my rant about the original OP 'off campus' for a blog post, as I 'disagreed' with the way the other OP had been seeking to link 'Storytelling games' and other 'ungodly' activities to 'girl gamers'.
> 
> Having said my piece on that I wasn't sure where I'd draw any exact 'lines' on images, because it's so much to do with context. On reconsidering the images I referred to at the time, I've kind of worked out/ working out my own idea of what I consider OK. Here are three fantasy images - do you 'guys' see a distinction between any of them?




The first one is the better executed of the three (somewhat subjective, I'll explain later) and, while very mildly titillating, fits with the theme of the title and isn't objectify or offensive. Now, the book as a whole might be, but I haven't read it. Since it's a humor book it gets the benefit of the doubt that the theme of the piece works with the cover. The second strikes me as an add for a low rent porn site. It's not offensive, but is all about the sex and big cartoon breasts. The third, is either the least well executed or the most depending on the artists' intended style and intent of the piece. It's not offensive or objectify.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 10, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Actually, that's not entirely true.  She didn't have any problem lining up publishing writing as Joane Rowling, but Bloomburg, her publisher, thought that the percieved target audience, i.e., young boys, might be leery of reading a book written by a woman.
> 
> So actually your example doesn't really prove what you think it proves at all.




In other words, it's short for "I made up these initials so my potential readers won't know I'm a woman."


----------



## Glade Riven (Aug 10, 2010)

As an artist, the only time I have recieved the complaint "she needs bigger boobs" is from women. Other artist freinds that I've talked to about drawing women is that most women prefer to be drawn with certaint things accentuated, even if they are extremely comfortable with their own body. Many women artists that I've met that are interested in the genre themselves create cheesecake and beefcake artwork. Most of cheesecake shows fit, empowered women. The best example of this is the fantasy painter Julie Bell.

My character Robin Goodfellow is drawn with thick-heeled boots because she has a complex about being short. She has curves because it is a visual identifier that she's not a pre-teen or early teen. Typically, she has a "Deer caught in the Headlights" look with her eyes as part of her creepy-cheerful personality. The closest she can get to looking seductive ends up slightly awkward because of it.

As a guy, this is one of those things where I can't win for losing. So I'll draw what I want, I'll draw what the client wants (within reason - there are things that I refuse to draw), and if someone decides to be offended by it, I shrug it off.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 10, 2010)

Transbot9 said:


> My character Robin Goodfellow is drawn with thick-heeled boots because she has a complex about being short. She has curves because it is a visual identifier that she's not a pre-teen or early teen. Typically, she has a "Deer caught in the Headlights" look with her eyes as part of her creepy-cheerful personality. The closest she can get to looking seductive ends up slightly awkward because of it.




I don't see anything wrong with either of those pictures. There's nothing wrong with portraying attractive women! And there's nothing wrong with portraying them in revealing garb and a sexy pose _if it's appropriate in context_.

The problem comes up when a woman with no earthly reason to dress or pose seductively is shown doing so anyhow. It's when I see supposedly professional adventurers, engaged in their professional line of work, who are dressed in steel bustiers, spike heels, and G-strings, and posed with their hips cocked and a "come-hither" look on their faces. That's when I have an issue with it.

As to Seoni... well, her clothing is certainly sexualized. Good luck wearing _that_ in a dungeon! Pose-wise, that varies, as it often does. At one extreme you have the holiday card example; at the other, you have this, which is some fairly awesome art and (aside from Seoni's standard outfit) not sexualized at all. I would say Seoni is a fairly typical example for modern fantasy art; the poses have improved quite a lot from twenty years ago, but the clothing still needs work.


----------



## nedjer (Aug 10, 2010)

Krensky said:


> The first one is the better executed of the three (somewhat subjective, I'll explain later) and, while very mildly titillating, fits with the theme of the title and isn't objectify or offensive. Now, the book as a whole might be, but I haven't read it. Since it's a humor book it gets the benefit of the doubt that the theme of the piece works with the cover. The second strikes me as an add for a low rent porn site. It's not offensive, but is all about the sex and big cartoon breasts. The third, is either the least well executed or the most depending on the artists' intended style and intent of the piece. It's not offensive or objectify.




I wouldn't turn up at the game table with the first one. It's not hugely offensive - just not a big fan of standard fantasy Photoshop. If that's the route, I'm after stuff like the Pathfinder cover dragon.

The ladies in the room laughed at the second picture, because it's so obviously ridiculous - sort of 'go ahead, I dare you to click me when nobody's looking, do you feel sleazy enough tonight?'.

The third image is more typical of the mix of the forums over at conceptart.org. Had to shrink to post. A line sketch can easily pick up more views than standard fantasy there - most of the artists run sketchbooks side by side with finished work.

Despite the amount of uncovered 'flesh' on show the ladies were mainly interested in what it would look like as a poster at 3 metres.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> Does it really matter if she chose this or her publisher?



I certainly think so, yes.


			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> The point is, someone along the line decided that a female writer wasn't what young men would want to read.  Kinda like Andre Norton.  Actually, a LOT like Andre Norton.
> 
> It does show that we haven't maybe come as far as we'd like to think.



How so?  Are we now to expect that little boys must be politically correct?  Are we going to start chastising them for thinking that girls have cooties?  

In any case, to whomever thought that from a marketing standpoint, I think they've been proven spectacularly wrong; it's hardly a mystery that J. K. Rowling is a woman to anyone who knows anything at all about Western culture these days.  It certainly doesn't seem to have had any impact on Harry Potter's popularity with boys.

So no matter how you look at it, I can't see that this is a case for a sexist approach without really pushing it beyond the bounds of reasonable discussion.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 10, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> In other words, it's short for "I made up these initials so my potential readers won't know I'm a woman."



Sure, but you can't take that out of context and wave it around expecting it to mean something other than what it does _in_ its correct context.


----------



## nedjer (Aug 10, 2010)

Gentlemen, please   - the thread is just starting to serve up some decent artwork


----------



## Umbran (Aug 10, 2010)

Hussar said:


> It does show that we haven't maybe come as far as we'd like to think.




Well, be careful there.  You're talking about an immature audience.  Kind of by definition, they don't act like mature people do.  You really want to use folks who are not finished learning how society operates as an indicator of how far society has gotten?  How does that make sense?



> Umbran - while it is true that she is in a position of power, the Piratical Lingerie outfit is a bit much.




Yes, I already said it was silly.  I'd go so far as to say it is downright nonsensical.  But my point is that silly and sexist are not the same thing.  The figure is drawn specifically and blatantly to be a target of sexual desire, yes.  But she's not drawn to link that to being of lesser power or value.  Quite the opposite, really.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 10, 2010)

How to look sexy, powerful and an idiot (one swordswing and she's legless):
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs21/f/2007/291/6/6/Female_Knight_by_dcwj.jpg

How to look sexy, powerful, and _not_ an idiot:
http://wallpapers-free.co.uk/backgrounds/fantasy/warriors/female-knight-and-horse.jpg

As for the men, how about some ridiculous skintight armor (or whatever the hell that is):
http://gaygamer.net/images/rufusandburne.jpg

Did someone call for David Bowie.. I mean, Elric of Melnibone?
http://homepage.mac.com/antallan/images/whelan/elric.jpg

How about that Rawhide Kid:
http://hamrman52.tripod.com/PICRAWHIDEKIDMAXFORBLOG.jpg

Some skin and muscle from Silkroad Online:
http://www.2desktop.com/wallpapers/Silkroad_Online_10735_1024_768.jpg

Vega is sexy:
http://www.pixfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/vega_street_fighter.jpg
http://th00.deviantart.net/fs27/300W/i/2008/118/6/c/STREETFIGHTER__Vega_by_Summerset.jpg

Akward pose, the expression, male fighter:
http://images.playfrance.com/3/1832/artwork/zoom/2921.jpg

And Eros shows that men too can wear ridiculously skimpy armor:
Wen-M's Gallery

Edit: well, that was fast. Seems that some of those links are no longer working. Sorry about that.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 10, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Yes, I already said it was silly.  I'd go so far as to say it is downright nonsensical.  But my point is that silly and sexist are not the same thing.  The figure is drawn specifically and blatantly to be a target of sexual desire, yes.  But she's not drawn to link that to being of lesser power or value.  Quite the opposite, really.




Context matters here.

If you're talking about that piece as a form of fetish art (albeit ultra-softcore), no problem. Whatever floats your boat, pun intended. But if you're talking about it as something to put in the Player's Handbook, hell no.

Calling it "silly and nonsensical" suggests this is some kind of one-off thing--an unusual departure by this one artist--which it really, really isn't. Women are portrayed like that in fantasy art all over the place. (I think that Clyde Caldwell piece was actually in one of the 2E rulebooks.)

The thing that distinguishes "sex object" from "sexy" is exactly this; sexualizing characters in situations where it doesn't make sense and isn't appropriate. A painting like this in the rulebooks is saying to female gamers, "This is what we think your PC looks like. When you say you're playing a pirate, this is what we imagine."

And yes, it is sexist. When was the last time you saw a male character in a gaming manual who was dressed like that? (And no, I'm not talking about a barbarian in a loincloth. I'm talking about a guy wearing an utterly impractical and inappropriate outfit that's clearly designed to draw attention to his very large package. Think male stripper.)

_Edited to add: Yeah, those links in Jonesy's post. The last one in particular. That's what I'm talking about. How many outfits like that do you see on men in gaming books?_


----------



## Glade Riven (Aug 10, 2010)

Pft. You're looking at it wrong. It's not emphasizing a guy's package, it's emphasizing a guy's _gear_.

Think about it...

Think about it...

For those who haven't figured it out...ever hear the phrase "compensating for something?" Masculinity has often been associated with either being awesome at something or having something awesome to prove that you are awesome and therefore _the *man*_.

On another note, any medieval historian will tell you that the design of fantasy armor is 99% garbage (although there is this one guy who makes some sweet looking "plate mail" out of leather). Certainly a chain mail sling-bikini is nigh-worthless except for style (for better or ill - at least she's wearing some leather underneath to prevent chafing).

EDIT: Wen-M did a lot of the Anima - Beyond Fantasy RPG Art Book


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 10, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> And yes, it is sexist. When was the last time you saw a male character in a gaming manual who was dressed like that? (And no, I'm not talking about a barbarian in a loincloth. I'm talking about a guy wearing an utterly impractical and inappropriate outfit that's clearly designed to draw attention to his very large package. Think male stripper.)
> 
> _Edited to add: Yeah, those links in Jonesy's post. The last one in particular. That's what I'm talking about. How many outfits like that do you see on men in gaming books?_




But the male "package" isn't as universally considered as sexy as female breasts or legs.  Again, it's DIFFERENT social standards.  My girlfriend and I agree that genitalia is not nice to look at.  We also agree that breasts are very nice to look at.  My friends will generally agree that the upper body(chest, arms, face) are more attractive on men than their junk.
EX: the 4e dwarf image, shows the dwarf female with nice cleavage, and the male with a nice exposed bicep.  Almost identical imagery is repeated in the Elf, half-elf, and human artwork.  The men also have strong, sharp faces.  These are the qualities that are found attractive in men, so they're emphasized.

Not all girls go crazy for David Bowie's crotch-rocket.

continuaing with 4e Players Handbook examples of male sexiness: 
pg58 we've not a nice shirtless tiefling.
pg72 we've got a dwarf who's musculature is clearly visible through his chainmail
pg103 we've got an elven woman with some nice side-boob and enough swords to show she's sexy, yes, kick ass, hell yes.
pg116 we repeat the "sexy bicep" imagery on a man.
pg142 we've got a dragonborn female with a low-cut breastplate but beyond that it's realistic armor and on 143 we see the "sexy bicep" again.
pg176 we revisit our sexy male tiefling's bicep
pg201 we get some sexy dragonborn arm muscles
pg203 we get a elf-fighter in some nice form-fitting mail, sexy, but practical
pg213 we get a variety of armor diagrams which I think are interesting and useful.
a: cloth is male and shows off the arms
b: leather is female and shows cleavage and abs
c: hide is male and low-cut and armless
d: chain is male and short-sleeved
e: scale is female and practical(showing off a bare arm)
f: plate is male and practice(showing off one bare arm)
pg224 is a very practical female fighter
pg226 repeats practical female fighter
pg234 we have a woman in sexy leather, but she's also about to stab your face.
pg235 we have a shirtless dragonborn with a VERY nice chest
pg258 we have a very sexy woman but very practial outfit
pg273 gives us another sexy man-bicep
pg294 gives us sexy dragonborn man-arms


And the imagery goes on and on.  Now, the two points I'm trying to make here are as follows: You guys can't be using stuff from 2ed to talk about sexism.  That was roughly 15 years ago, and the imagery has changed because the content creators have accounted for this.

My second point is that what is considered sexy for men and women is different.  Your average man will generally find(of the unenlightened body parts), legs, breasts, hips, butt, and stomach attractive, so shots of women will show off these things, it's genetic, they're looking for fertility.  Women conversely are going to find depictions of strength and grace attractive(again, it's biology), so you get muscly arms, chests, and sometimes legs shown off.  Biology doesn't care if you've got a big package because the package doesn't help you kill a tiger for food.  Likewise male biology doesn't care if you've got a nice lady-part but will if you have nice breasts/legs/hips because it looks for fertility.

No we're not Neanderthals, but the basic biological instincts are still there, the imagery is the way it is because at our very base, it's what we want.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 10, 2010)

jonesy said:


> How to look sexy, powerful, and _not_ an idiot:
> http://wallpapers-free.co.uk/backgrounds/fantasy/warriors/female-knight-and-horse.jpg




Um, honestly there's nothing sexy about that picture. She's just a woman in armor astride a horse holding a sword.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 10, 2010)

ShinHakkaider said:


> Um, honestly there's nothing sexy about that picture. She's just a woman in armor astride a horse holding a sword.




If by "sexy" you mean there's no skin showing, then you'd be right.

If by "sexy" you mean she's a strong woman who has both grace and power, then yes.

Different kinds of sexy.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 10, 2010)

shidaku said:


> ...it's what we want.



What we want varies so much that generalizations don't really work. Like here:



ShinHakkaider said:


> Um, honestly there's nothing sexy about that picture. She's just a woman in armor astride a horse holding a sword.



Nothing is sexier to me than self-confidence. Nothing. That picture is f****** hot.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 11, 2010)

jonesy said:


> What we want varies so much that generalizations don't really work. Like here:
> 
> 
> Nothing is sexier to me than self-confidence. Nothing. That picture is f****** hot.




Social generalizations don't work.  Biological ones do.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 11, 2010)

jonesy said:


> What we want varies so much that generalizations don't really work. Like here:
> 
> 
> Nothing is sexier to me than self-confidence. Nothing. That picture is f****** hot.




Different strokes then. I see a woman astride a horse holding a sword staring at the viewer. It doesnt say self confidence or anything of the sort to me. It might as well be a simple head shot. To me anyway.


----------



## ShinHakkaider (Aug 11, 2010)

shidaku said:


> If by "sexy" you mean there's no skin showing, then you'd be right.
> 
> If by "sexy" you mean she's a strong woman who has both grace and power, then yes.
> 
> Different kinds of sexy.




I agree with the second. I just dont see any of that in that picture. Different strokes I guess.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 11, 2010)

Hobo said:


> Posting LOL is "light, privileged mockery?"   That's "WTF is this guy's problem?".  Except more politely.




Except there is a problem. Maybe not one that person wants to address, but a problem for someone.



> Frankly, anytime you've got Sean "Flaming Hippy" K. Reynolds saying that your sensitivity issues are Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, that should be a good barometer reading that the rest of the world _really_ doesn't know what in the world you're talking about.




What does this mean? What makes Sean K. Reynolds an authority on cultural and gender sensitivity? Perhaps the fact that he's a white dude who has apparently very little awareness of the rampant, if often subtle, racism in RPG art?

You are right, most people don't know thing one about sexism. That doesn't make them right not to be offended or other people wrong because they are. It means they are at a disadvantage when interacting with other humans of substantially dissimilar backgrounds. It's one thing to object, to criticize, to defend, to persuade. It's another to respond with something along the lines of "WTF u r crazy???" when someone indicates you may have been sending messages you were not intending.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 11, 2010)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Should this be seen as a problem?




Wrong question, I think.

The question is: Is it a problem for you, or the people whose opinions you care about?

If yes, then it needs to be addressed at least within that circle. If no, then trying to make it a problem on some attempt at righteousness is silly.



			
				Hussar said:
			
		

> ut, let's not ignore the issue either and sweep it under the carpet. Our chosen genre - Speculative Fiction - has been a white, male dominated genre for the better part of its history. To the point where female writers well into the mid-20th century had to write under male names. Recognizing that SF and Fantasy has not exactly covered itself in glory in the past when it comes to social issues isn't going to hurt anyone. At least recognize that there can be an issue and perhaps a dialogue can follow.




There's a few issues bottled up in that.

The most obvious one, the one I'm going to talk about, has already been teased out by a few posts: it's a *marketing* choice. Which is why you see this same bias time and again in Western -- especially American -- media. Can't speak with authority on most other media cultural landscapes, but over here, the white male's main privilege is that _they are the target audience_. 

But the reason for this isn't usually discrimination. The motive is usually naked profit motive. White men have the money, white men get the commercials and products designed to take their money away made to appeal to their white male sensibilities, because our cultural products exist primarily to make someone somewhere slightly richer, and if you want to be the richest, you need to liberate wealth from white men (especially younger white men, who are decidedly free with their wealth...see D&D's target audience). 

Now, this leads to a host of unfortunate and tragic and frankly bigoted cultural effects, but that's not its intent. J.K. Rowling's publisher wasn't being sexist, they were being _capitalist_, trying to maximize potential profits.

I think that's a problem, but it's not a problem that hobby gaming can solve all by itself, because it's a much larger problem than D&D. What D&D can do is try to be as inoffensive as it can be, in order to broaden its appeal to as many people as possible. And there, yes, even the current edition has its issues, and there's ample room for improvement, though we've come a distance from 1e's gendered ability adjustments.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 11, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> snip .....
> Some good stuff that I totally agree with
> 
> though we've come a distance from 1e's gendered ability adjustments.



We have but that is in large because the society around us has moved on also.

Personally as a country person with some experience of being outdoors in the rain and cold much of fantasy rpg dress makes me laugh and most fantasy armour is impractical and in some cases downright dangerous but pretty embedded into the genre at this stage.

One aspect of the equal stats for male and female characters, in my opinion if the distribution of strength and so forth is gender neutral I would expect that males and females of each species would be roughly the same size but one never sees that in the art.


----------



## Krensky (Aug 11, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> One aspect of the equal stats for male and female characters, in my opinion if the distribution of strength and so forth is gender neutral I would expect that males and females of each species would be roughly the same size but one never sees that in the art.




Frankly, at this point, the Strength stat is so abstract that modifying it based on sex is sort of silly and won't add anything other then annoy people. Heck, it can be argued that all of the stats represent a character's ability to apply their strength, intelligence, etc rather then a absolute amount. Strength is a bit of an outlier, since it effects lifting and encumbrance which are concrete measurements, but still I feel the principle that the STR score is a mix of muscles, conditioning, etc is valid.

If you wanted to represent human dimorphism regarding strength, giving male characters a small bonus (+1 or 2) to strength when calculating lifting and encumbrance would probably be the best way. Well, that and the differing height/weight tables.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 11, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> One aspect of the equal stats for male and female characters, in my opinion if the distribution of strength and so forth is gender neutral I would expect that males and females of each species would be roughly the same size but one never sees that in the art.




But remember, male and female _characters_ are not "normal people", they're adventurers, so a male fighter and a female fighter would both be bigger and stronger than "normal people" males and females.  Likewise a female mage is going to be just as smart as a male mage, but both will be smarter than "normal people" males and females.


----------



## surfarcher (Aug 11, 2010)

I think some folks are missing the point.

It's a _fantasy_ game.

My girls (yes, my female players consider themselves girls and don't like being called "women" or "ladies") play a variety of characters. Right now my wife is a blonde female Eladrin Sorceress - a smoking hot looking stereotype and frankly a brat.  My daughter is an auburn Human Dhampyr Rogue who'd as soon fang and stab you as look at you.  Another (adult and about to birth her first child) girl loves playing a female Elf Wizardess.

None of my girls have ever chosen a male character.  Or an average (or below average) appearance/portrait.  They also prefer a feminine or neutral class title (sorceress or wizardess, not sorcerer or wizard).

They run across plenty of stereotypes in-game.  Male and female, good and bad.  And I/we also break stereotypes or float alternate folks all the time... Taking anything at face value is just plain dangerous in-game.  It's part of the fun for us.

My girls don't have a problem telling me what they like and don't like.  And none of them have complained about sex based stereotypes yet so I guess we are doing OK.  They do have a giggle at some of the girls in the books, but they don't seem seriously offended.

So while I read the list of questions I just felt it wasn't relevant to my gaming experiences.  But I hope it gets you some feedback you will find useful.

YMMV.


----------



## dicechild (Aug 11, 2010)

*Response*

Not to completely disregard all of the posts following the original, but I feel like I should answer the OP first and then move on to other concerns.

Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?

Yes, but I think in an effort to avoid being sexist, people often go to the opposite end of the spectrum and try to make all of the women in the game strong and willful, or anything but beautiful and dangerous; otherwise, sometimes they avoid having women in their campaigns at all in order to avoid the issue.  I think often more issues arise by trying to make everything politically correct. *my opinion of course   

Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers?

Yes.

Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?

Yes, but unless someone has a tip as to good ways to encourage anyone to join a group, I find I am content with gaming with people who already have an interest.

Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?

No. I think that once they get into gaming they can choose at their own discretion

Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs?

No. From an economic point of view, people vote and express their opinions with their wallets.

Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs?

No.  I think young people are perfectly capable of finding the games by themselves, and when they find an interest, I think it is important for them to find a group that is also of younger people.

Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids equally or females).

I know it has been mentioned before, but I do this mostly because "hack-and-slash" bores me.  I try to find ways to make the game interesting for everyone because it should be.

Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts?

No.

Have you or AYWT actively discourage obvious and persistent sexism at your game table, e.g. don't laugh along with the jokes/ speak up if a female player appears uncomfortable with some of what's being said?

I feel this is the same with all my players, and is enforced as such.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 11, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Social generalizations don't work.  Biological ones do.




Um.  No, not really.  And what "we want" is not a biological generalization anyways, it's social as _hell_.  Everything you described there is an exceptionally modern western portrayal of beauty - and even then it's still starkly limited.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 11, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Um.  No, not really.  And what "we want" is not a biological generalization anyways, it's social as _hell_.  Everything you described there is an exceptionally modern western portrayal of beauty - and even then it's still starkly limited.




No, no it's not, the ideas of fertility, large breasts, large hips, and a pregnant belly are common in thousands of society all over the world and throughout time.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 11, 2010)

> Personally as a country person with some experience of being outdoors in the rain and cold much of fantasy rpg dress makes me laugh and most fantasy armour is impractical and in some cases downright dangerous but pretty embedded into the genre at this stage.




Well, with the "impractical" thing, I'm willing to give heroic fantasy a total pass, personally.

Practicality doesn't factor into it. As I pointed out above, my most recent D&D character dresses -- literally -- _like a clown_. That's hardly practical orc-slaying gear, but it evokes the character I want to play. If I play a shirtless barbarian with mighty thews, logical practicality isn't a concern. If I want to play a seductive sorceress, I might run around in fantasy prostitute gear, and that could be totally fine. 

I'm fine with impractical. Admittedly, I watch anime and come to D&D via JRPG's, so giant swords and spikey hair and absurd equipment are all genre tropes I accepted pretty early on, and this might not be true for everyone.

Personally, I'm not so fine with blatant ridiculous sexualization. The spellcaster on the cover of the 4e PHB bothers me, for instance. The thrust rear, the prominent thigh, the barely-constraining leather top, the hooker makeup, the parted lips, the tousled "sex hair".....it's just too much for me. It's not that it's impractical. It's that she seems calculated to titillate, to grab the male gaze and not let go, to ping on the radar of a pubescent highschooler. It's not her sexiness that offends me as much as it is her brazen flesh-to-sell-books strategy. This is also my problem with the pirate queen up above.

But those are my limits. I would think more poorly of a book with those images in them. I wouldn't personally presume to say that everyone should be offended by them and that WotC should change the cover immediately or be called out on their vile sexism. I'd encourage folks to vote with their conscience. If you've got a problem with the book, maybe do like I do and DDI the stuff instead.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 11, 2010)

shidaku said:


> No, no it's not, the ideas of fertility, large breasts, large hips, and a pregnant belly are common in thousands of society all over the world and throughout time.




Oh, certainly.

But there are also drastically different ideas of beauty that exist in thousands of societies and throughout time as well - and plenty of societies very pointedly did _not_ find large hips and breasts to be considered attractive.

Is lighter skin more attractive or darker, tanned skin?  Is a thin woman beautiful, or an obese woman?  What about mens' legs - depending on what decade it is in Europe, the legs of a man are either best when shown or covered, they're best long and thing or thick and stout.  Norsemen loved women with big feet.  China, uh, didn't.  Long hair or short hair?

Large breasts and large hips?  We just got _out_ of the 90's where the exceptionally thin model who had neither of those were considered beautiful and fashionable.  Hell, the medieval standard of beauty - and indeed the standard of beauty throughout _most_ of the ancient world - was either _very_ overweight women or women with small breasts and a tight pelvis.  Large breasts were seen as vulger and disgusting; women who were seen as beautiful were compared to apples, small and round.  How about the 1920's, where a boyish look on women was desired?  That doesn't fit the ideal of large hips and breasts, either.

Big muscular men are attractive?  Not so, says Asia, where the look at any teenage girl magazine or at the images of any major JE or kpop band shows men that are seen as effeminate by American standards.  What about facial hair and chest hair?  Hot or not?  Most people on these forums scoffs at the sight of the latest teenbooper or at a certain sparkly vampire from Twilight, and yet _plenty_ of women - not just girls, but adult women - find him insanely hot.

So yeah, _no_.  It's not that simple.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2010)

KM said:
			
		

> Now, this leads to a host of unfortunate and tragic and frankly bigoted cultural effects, but that's not its intent. J.K. Rowling's publisher wasn't being sexist, they were being capitalist, trying to maximize potential profits.




Does that excuse it though?  Does the pursuit of profit excuse the sexism?  Can they not be both sexist and capitalist at the same time?  IOW, does intent matter?


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 11, 2010)

ProfessorCirno said:


> Oh, certainly.
> 
> But there are also drastically different ideas of beauty that exist in thousands of societies and throughout time as well - and plenty of societies very pointedly did _not_ find large hips and breasts to be considered attractive.
> 
> ...




Thank you for not actually addressing the argument and instead running on about MODERN social standards.  Which I wasn't talking about.


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Aug 11, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Thank you for not actually addressing the argument and instead running on about MODERN social standards.  Which I wasn't talking about.




Yes, discussing medieval and ancient world desires is pretty modern I agr

Wait, what?


----------



## Krensky (Aug 11, 2010)

I think if you want a generalization, standards of beauty typically (but not always) involve a certain symmetry of features and whatever physical qualities suggest health and an abundance of resources and leisure time. Looking like you're not from around here helps too. 

What those qualities are will and does vary from culture to culture and over time.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2010)

I play mostly (well exclusively for some time) online over VTT's.  So, I'm always looking for images to use in game.  When I ran my last campaign, it was an SF setting set in a trans-humanist far future.  But, part of the setting was that a large proportion of the population still looked (more or less) baseline human.

So, I went on a hunt for SF images of men and women.  It was really, really hard to find decent pics of men actually.  Almost all the images I could find on places like Deviantart, or Conceptart.org or CGSociety were SF females and most of them were pretty heavily cheesecake.

It's actually a bit of a challenge to find non-cheesecake SF art at all - every woman is hyper sexualized holding a BFG it seems.  And the men are virtually non-existant.

But, there is hope.  Stumbled across this collection of art just now and thought I would share.  Lots of pics of men and women (and various other beings) with nary a bit of 'cake.

About the absolute worst of the bunch (and it's hardly what I would call cheesecake) is this one:







And, yeah, I think anyone would be hard pressed to get offended by that.  So, there is hope.  I guess Sturgeon's Law applies here as much as anywhere.


----------



## Wik (Aug 11, 2010)

Krensky said:


> I think if you want a generalization, standards of beauty typically (but not always) involve a certain symmetry of features and whatever physical qualities suggest health and an abundance of resources and leisure time. Looking like you're not from around here helps too.
> 
> What those qualities are will and does vary from culture to culture and over time.




You've pretty much got the general gist of it.  

I've taken a bazillion anthropology courses, and it comes down basically to this:

1)  Beauty is what is hard to get.  If everyone works in the fields, being pale is attractive.  If everyone eats high carb meals because that's what's cheap, being thin is attractive.  For women, beauty is often related to how a woman can display that she does not do work (and is therefore, wealthy) - long fingernails, elaborate hair, shoes that limit movement, a lot of body jewelry.  Basically, anything that impedes effectiveness often enhances "beauty".  Among men, beauty is generally related to status, but also to the ability to excel in primary cultural goals.

2)  Our desires and interests in a mate are not biologically determined.  This whole "cross-cultural desire for large breasts" is bull.  No, really, it is - there are many, MANY cultures that completely ignore that part of the woman's anatomy (most of Africa, for example).  The only real universal mark of beauty could be summed up as "health" - people don't generally find the sick sexy.  If you want to argue this, just think - if there were biological cues programmed into us saying "this is beauty", it would span cross-culturally.  Over time, those that had those characteristics would become more common than those that do not.  And yet... look at the diversity of human life in the world.  

3)  People that say there are certain cross-cultural "ideals" are actually seeing the effect of globalization in the world, how american standards of beauty are spreading across the globe.  Look at Anorexia in Southeast Asia - didn't exist in any quantifiable amount thirty years ago, and now a rather large epidemic (not as large as in the U.S.A., but still considerable).


----------



## Krensky (Aug 11, 2010)

Although the effect of people in "power" shouldn't be neglected. The deformed tiny feet thing in China was, if memory serves, due to an Emperor's weird foot paraphillia. Similarly, I'm curious exactly when blondes became "more attractive" then other women and how that lines up with Mae West's or Marilyn Monroe's career.

I wouldn't agree that what defines a desirable mate isn't biologically determined though, just that how it's determined is very complex because it's an interaction of lots of different biologic and social factors. The criteria are much more ephemeral and subtle then big boobs or tanned skin or broad shoulders or whatever.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 11, 2010)

shidaku said:


> No, no it's not, the ideas of fertility,




Fertility is hard to spot with the naked eye.



> large breasts,




Far from universal, and there is not much agreement on how large, large should be, if you're into large. I think it's more accurate to say that it's popular for women to _have_ breasts, rather than saying the universal preference is for large.



> large hips,




Most modern photographers for women's magazines are in the habit of digitally slimming women's hips.



> and a pregnant belly are common in thousands of society all over the world and throughout time.




Seoni sure doesn't look pregnant.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 11, 2010)

Krensky said:


> I wouldn't agree that what defines a desirable mate isn't biologically determined though, just that how it's determined is very complex because it's an interaction of lots of different biologic and social factors. The criteria are much more ephemeral and subtle then big boobs or tanned skin or broad shoulders or whatever.




Biologically affected yes. Determined no. Certain things do seem to be hardwired--e.g., preference for symmetrical features--but beyond that, the influence of biology is far too subtle IMO to call it "determining" anything, and social factors seem to play a far larger role.


----------



## jasin (Aug 11, 2010)

Wik said:


> The only real universal mark of beauty could be summed up as "health" - people don't generally find the sick sexy.



And referencing Twilight provides a counterexample even for that.


----------



## wedgeski (Aug 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, there is hope.  Stumbled across this collection of art just now and thought I would share.  Lots of pics of men and women (and various other beings) with nary a bit of 'cake.



That is a fabulous set of art.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Aug 11, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Frankly, at this point, the Strength stat is so abstract that modifying it based on sex is sort of silly and won't add anything other then annoy people. Heck, it can be argued that all of the stats represent a character's ability to apply their strength, intelligence, etc rather then a absolute amount. Strength is a bit of an outlier, since it effects lifting and encumbrance which are concrete measurements, but still I feel the principle that the STR score is a mix of muscles, conditioning, etc is valid.
> 
> If you wanted to represent human dimorphism regarding strength, giving male characters a small bonus (+1 or 2) to strength when calculating lifting and encumbrance would probably be the best way. Well, that and the differing height/weight tables.



Oh! you have taken me up totally wrong, I do not want to represent human dimorphism in the game, I am pointing out that human diamorphisn is so embedded in our thinking that the fantasy art ignores the lack of it in the game statistics.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 11, 2010)

Hussar said:


> But, there is hope.  Stumbled across this collection of art just now and thought I would share.



Hey! That's great!


----------



## Krensky (Aug 11, 2010)

ardoughter said:


> Oh! you have taken me up totally wrong, I do not want to represent human dimorphism in the game, I am pointing out that human diamorphisn is so embedded in our thinking that the fantasy art ignores the lack of it in the game statistics.




No, I got that. It was late and I started musing. As I said, ability scores are so abstract that they seem to represent ability of applying your strength or whatever.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Aug 11, 2010)

Wik said:
			
		

> I've taken a bazillion anthropology courses, and it comes down basically to this:




Yar, a quick cultural anthro 100-level course should disabuse most people of the notion that there are hard-coded standards for universal sexiness. But rarity and luxury are always sexy.

Here in New York, there's a surge of women who like guys with beards, for instance. The cultural antho undergrad in me keeps analyzing it in terms of what it means for social status, and I've come to theorize that, here, beards = freedom. This is because most men need to shave for their office job, meaning those who can afford to have a chin warmer are either (a) powerful enough that it doesn't matter, or (b) not that attached to their office job, and thus have the luxury of mobility and choice in their employment. Freedom is a status symbol. 



			
				jasin said:
			
		

> And referencing Twilight provides a counterexample even for that.




Vampire stuff turns the concept of "sickness is unattractive" a bit on its head, because looking pale and sallow is actually an indicator of power, rather than an indicator of fragility. And vampires are powerful. Teen girls don't scream for Edward because he's sick-looking, they scream for him because he's mighty.

There's also a bit of "brooding indoors in the dark" going on there. Paleness is indicative in society of being indoors most of the time and, when you're a teen, that's a key to intelligence: the smart kids with special knowledge are inside all the time, the average kids go outside and screw around in the fields. Which is kind of appropriate for a vampire with all this arcane knowledge.

Anyway, now that I've applied cultural studies to Twilight and Williamsbeards, I think I need to go report to my professors for flogging.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 11, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> What does this mean? What makes Sean K. Reynolds an authority on cultural and gender sensitivity? Perhaps the fact that he's a white dude who has apparently very little awareness of the rampant, if often subtle, racism in RPG art?



I never said Sean K. Reynolds was an authority on the subject.  What I said was that he's notorious for being over-the-top about sensitivity to stuff like this.

If you're over-the-topping him, your barometer is _way_ off.

Which, based on your oh-so-serious over-reaction to the Seoni Christmas card art and the very existance of the character of Seoni in general, I'd say was pretty obvious anyway.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 11, 2010)

Wik and Jonesy - yeah, as I said, I have a bit of a fetish myself - I keep surfing the net for images to use in my games.  Every year or so I have to empty out my Rough Images directory because it's starting to tip over the couple of Gb scale and that's just ridiculous.  

But, that being said, my StumbleUpon thingie is set to troll image sites almost exclusively and the mature filter is on.  Somehow, that's just a little bit sad.


----------



## Desdichado (Aug 11, 2010)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I would think more poorly of a book with those images in them. I wouldn't personally presume to say that everyone should be offended by them and that WotC should change the cover immediately or be called out on their vile sexism. I'd encourage folks to vote with their conscience.



Exactly my point, I guess.  I find it at best very off-putting that folks here are crusading, white-knighting and telling me what I should or should not be offended by.

Calling Seoni sexist, or that the responses that were linked to here were paternalistic, "privileged mockery" is... well, it's off-putting.  If you're on the bleeding edge of sexual sensitivity, don't project that onto other folks, deal with that yourself.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 11, 2010)

I'm going to backtrack a bit to this:


Hussar said:


>



The problem with that image isn't whether it's exploitive or not. That depends on your point of view.

The problem is that it shatters suspension of disbelief. to justify a scene like that you'd have to come up with something like:

"The captain went swimming for a while. Then she got up on deck and put on a loose shirt and had a nap in the sun. Having done that she went to her cabin to get dressed. She'd only gotten her jacket on when she heard a commotion break up on deck. She hastily put on her boots and ran up to find her crew fighting over the chest of treasure they'd taken on the last raid. She pulled out her gun, put her foot on the chest and asssumed the I'm-in-charge-here stance. Just then her pet landed on her shoulder."

I mean, unless that actually happened to Clyde during a game it gets pretty convoluted.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 11, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Most modern photographers for women's magazines are in the habit of digitally slimming women's hips.




Women's magazines are in the business of selling magazines, diets, clothing, and cosmetics to women.  They don't accomplish that goal by showing women that what they already have, they way they currently are, and they way they already look, is what men want.

Thus, women's magazines are not in the business of telling women what men actually want, and the pictures therein will not tell you.

If there's anything in the world that is telling women they aren't good enough, it isn't fantasy game art - it's women's magazines.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Women's magazines are in the business of selling magazines, diets, clothing, and cosmetics to women.  They don't accomplish that goal by showing women that what they already have, they way they currently are, and they way they already look, is what men want.
> 
> Thus, women's magazines are not in the business of telling women what men actually want, and the pictures therein will not tell you.
> 
> If there's anything in the world that is telling women they aren't good enough, it isn't fantasy game art - it's women's magazines.



 Men's books are guilty too -- there's no way I can look as manly as this dude:







Cheers, -- N


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> If there's anything in the world that is telling women they aren't good enough, it isn't fantasy game art - it's women's magazines.




It's not exactly an either-or proposition.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 11, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?



What? I truly do not understand this question, or rather, how it might apply in real terms, at all.



> Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers?



Answers itself, surely.



> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?



No. *Equal* opportunity ftw.



> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?



As above. Da ladies wanna play, ain't gonna get in their way.



> Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs?



No. That would be between them and their future sales figures. Let nature take its course, no?



> Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs?



Sure. Just hasn't happened. Much, anyway. Mainly, because there are ongoing campaigns, and they all (currently) contain considerable "mature" content. No, not necessarily _that_ kind of thing, but well, stuff that wouldn't (or, in some cases, mightn't) be suitable for younger players.



> Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids equally or females).



Yikes. Also, answering the question directly, and at face value: No.



> Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts?



****, no idea. It doesn't cross my mind, really. I doubt I'll lose sleep over it, either.



> Have you or AYWT actively discourage obvious and persistent sexism at your game table, e.g. don't laugh along with the jokes/ speak up if a female player appears uncomfortable with some of what's being said?



Might well do. Assuming the lass doesn't say something first, that is.  Depends on the circumstances, in a whole lot of ways, as is usually the case with real people and real situations. But AIWT? Indeed, and have done a few times.*


* But not only on behalf of female players. . .


----------



## Umbran (Aug 11, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> It's not exactly an either-or proposition.




Yeah, but really, when you consider the damage done by the imagry, and the size of the audience...

Fantasy art is a compact car technically speeding, but keeping pace with other cars on the highway.  Women's magazines are a double-trailer semi, going 90 in a 55 zone, with a drunken driver text messaging to arrange some insider stock trading.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Yeah, but really, when you consider the damage done by the imagry, and the size of the audience...
> 
> Fantasy art is a compact car technically speeding, but keeping pace with other cars on the highway.  Women's magazines are a double-trailer semi, going 90 in a 55 zone, with a drunken driver text messaging to arrange some insider stock trading.




Granted.

Still, one does what one can in one's own corner of the world. We gamers aren't going to change women's magazines, but our voices can have an effect on game publications. And have, in fact; the portrayal of women in D&D and in RPGs generally has improved quite a bit over the years. 4E is better than 3E, and 3E was better than 2E. I just want the trend to continue.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 11, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Granted.
> 
> Still, one does what one can in one's own corner of the world. We gamers aren't going to change women's magazines, but our voices can have an effect on game publications. And have, in fact; the portrayal of women in D&D and in RPGs generally has improved quite a bit over the years. 4E is better than 3E, and 3E was better than 2E. I just want the trend to continue.




True, though I have to admit the decision to switch to a feminine personal noun, "she" "her" perturbs me a little bit.  I think it's something along the lines of worrying about going too far past the right direction.  It's not even _sometimes_ male, it's almost universally female in many books.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 11, 2010)

After complaining about Caldwell's pirate I do have to say that his Dragonlance and Gazetteer images are very good in this. The women dress realistically and Caramon gets to be a gladiatorial beefcake.



shidaku said:


> True, though I have to admit the decision to switch to a feminine personal noun, "she" "her" perturbs me a little bit.  I think it's something along the lines of worrying about going too far past the right direction.  It's not even _sometimes_ male, it's almost universally female in many books.



I rather like it. It's very refreshing. But then again I _am_ Finnish. I can refer to Lena Headey, Johnny Depp, an earthworm (which is a hermaphrodite) and the wall in my room with the same pronoun.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 11, 2010)

shidaku said:


> True, though I have to admit the decision to switch to a feminine personal noun, "she" "her" perturbs me a little bit.  I think it's something along the lines of worrying about going too far past the right direction.  It's not even _sometimes_ male, it's almost universally female in many books.




That's one I've wrestled with a fair amount. One approach is to alternate male and female, but that can get rather jumbled stylistically. "He or she" is very clumsy, "they" arouses the ire of my inner grammar Nazi, and attempts to create a new gender-neutral term like "ze" and "hir" have generally gone nowhere.

In my own writings and posts, I try to write so as not to need a generic third-person pronoun. Where I can't avoid it, I've started to adopt the universal "she" out of sheer convenience. At such time as sexism is eradicated in Western culture, I will revisit that decision. In the meantime, I think the universal "she" is far less likely to make male gamers feel unwelcome than the universal "he" would for female gamers.


----------



## AngryMojo (Aug 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Yeah, but really, when you consider the damage done by the imagry, and the size of the audience...
> 
> Fantasy art is a compact car technically speeding, but keeping pace with other cars on the highway.  Women's magazines are a double-trailer semi, going 90 in a 55 zone, with a drunken driver text messaging to arrange some insider stock trading.




And these both pale in comparison to the downed airplane exploding on the highway that is problems with sexism elsewhere in the world.  Take a look at the controversial TIME magazine cover that came out recently if you want a real example of horrendous problems with women's rights in the world.  Next to that, the cheesecake/beefcake argument really seems trivial and silly.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 11, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> "they" arouses the ire of my inner grammar Nazi




I hear that a lot, but I kind of have to wonder - the singular "they" has been part of the English language since the late 15th century. How many hundreds of years does it need to be in use before it isn't considered against the rules?


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I hear that a lot, but I kind of have to wonder - the singular "they" has been part of the English language since the late 15th century. How many hundreds of years does it need to be in use before it isn't considered against the rules?




Well, nobody said grammar Nazis were rational. 

I agree with you in principle, but in practice I have a very hard time forcing myself to adopt the singular "they," and I know a lot of people would think less of my writing if I did. Sad but true. The question then becomes, is this particular linguistic hill worth dying on?


----------



## Umbran (Aug 11, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Well, nobody said grammar Nazis were rational.




Fair enough 



> I agree with you in principle, but in practice I have a very hard time forcing myself to adopt the singular "they," and I know a lot of people would think less of my writing if I did. Sad but true. The question then becomes, is this particular linguistic hill worth dying on?




I think the argument of, "I just don't like it, it doesn't sound good to me," is far more solid than the grammatical one.  Unassailable, even, as there's no accounting (or grammatical rule) for taste.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I think the argument of, "I just don't like it, it doesn't sound good to me," is far more solid than the grammatical one.  Unassailable, even, as there's no accounting (or grammatical rule) for taste.




Yeah, well, the problem is that I _can_ account for my taste; it comes from years and years of reading books produced by a publishing system in which the singular "they" is unacceptable. Writers are what we read. If the writers who shaped my writing habits had used it regularly, I expect I'd have no problem with it.

In other words, I don't like it because it's not the done thing, which is a lousy reason. Setting aside my personal preferences, singular "they" is the obvious solution to the generic pronoun problem, and if I felt more strongly about it (the "hill worth dying on" question), I'd train myself to use and like singular "they," and crusade to make it acceptable.

I don't feel that strongly about it, though, so I'm going with the path of not-quite-least-but-definitely-pretty-low resistance by using universal "she" instead.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 11, 2010)

Umbran said:


> I think the argument of, "I just don't like it, it doesn't sound good to me," is far more solid than the grammatical one.  Unassailable, even, as there's no accounting (or grammatical rule) for taste.



 My dislike for the singular "they" is purely functional: allowing it increases ambiguity, and there's no corresponding benefit.

For example:
* "When a Wizard uses Bigby's Insulting Finger on a group of orcs, they are Dazed." _Who is Dazed?_

This is the same reason why I like mixed gender pronouns:
- "When Alice uses Bigby's Slapfight on Bob, he takes 5 damage and she is Slowed."

... and now I think we may be off topic.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 11, 2010)

Nifft said:


> My dislike for the singular "they" is purely functional: allowing it increases ambiguity, and there's no corresponding benefit.
> 
> For example:
> * "When a Wizard uses Bigby's Insulting Finger on a group of orcs, they are Dazed." _Who is Dazed?_
> ...




Wouldn't a more appropriately worded description be:
* "When a Wizard uses Bigby's Insulting Finger on a group of orcs, the orcs are Dazed."

vs

- "When Alice uses Bigby's Slapfight on Bob, Bob takes 5 damage and Alice is Slowed."
((there is afterall, no guarantee that Alice is a girl, and Bob is a guy))
or
- "When Alice uses Bigby's Slapfight on Bob, the target takes 5 damage and the caster is Slowed."


----------



## Umbran (Aug 11, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Yeah, well, the problem is that I _can_ account for my taste; it comes from years and years of reading books produced by a publishing system in which the singular "they" is unacceptable.




Ah, here's where I get to be archaic in my usage.  

I meant the phrase more like the Latin root, "_De gustibus non est disputandum_," meaning, "there is no disputing about tastes".  Accounting crept in not to allude to finding the origin of taste, but accounting as in "mathematical system to analyze" - so, there's no objective measure for tastes.

Okay, enough with the linguistic threadjacking.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 11, 2010)

shidaku said:


> Wouldn't a more appropriately worded description be:
> * "When a Wizard uses Bigby's Insulting Finger on a group of orcs, the orcs are Dazed."



 No. Pronouns are good. We need them. This short passage is an example. Find a longer passage and remove all the pronouns, if you need to convince yourself of their value.



shidaku said:


> - "When Alice uses Bigby's Slapfight on Bob, Bob takes 5 damage and Alice is Slowed."



 Again, pronouns are good. Throwing them away is bad.



shidaku said:


> ((there is afterall, no guarantee that Alice is a girl, and Bob is a guy))



 Enough English speakers will indeed understand Alice as female and Bob as male. Enough of them that you have no point.



shidaku said:


> - "When Alice uses Bigby's Slapfight on Bob, the target takes 5 damage and the caster is Slowed."



 Yet again, this is an example passage. It is simple for a reason, and that reason is easy digestion.

Sure, we could re-work all English sentences to exclude pronouns, but that would be bad. We could re-work all English sentences to use roles instead of pronouns, but that would be difficult (and there's no guarantee it would not suck worse).

You want to shovel all this crap into English, just to gain a singular 'they'? Why, what did singular 'they' ever do for you?

, -- N


----------



## nedjer (Aug 11, 2010)

Aus_Snow said:


> and at face value




your opinion is all I'm after. Reading this far I'd rather hand out copies of Gamers, Sexy and . . . whatever the book was to everyone at the table than leave a women's mag on show


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 11, 2010)

nedjer said:


> your opinion is all I'm after. Reading this far I'd rather hand out copies of Gamers, Sexy and . . . whatever the book was to everyone at the table than leave a women's mag on show



Um. Reading "this far" through the thread? My post in particular? Just curious is all. Either way, not sure I quite understand what women's mags have to do with anything. Also, not sure what book(s) you're referring to. If you could spell it out for me, it would be appreciated. I mean, I _think_ I get the gist, but. . . maybe not.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Sure, we could re-work all English sentences to exclude pronouns, but that would be bad. We could re-work all English sentences to use roles instead of pronouns, but that would be difficult (and there's no guarantee it would not suck worse).




Well, are we worried about all sentences, or gaming book examples?

For the latter, it occurs to me that gaming books bear more resemblance to technical writing than most other forms of prose.  And in technical writing, you do generally want to remove ambiguity, and be as specific as possible.  I would expect authors of such to minimize use of pronouns (with or without gender) for that reason.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> For the latter, it occurs to me that gaming books bear more resemblance to technical writing than most other forms of prose.  And in technical writing, you do generally want to remove ambiguity, and be as specific as possible.  I would expect authors of such to minimize use of pronouns (with or without gender) for that reason.



 Disambiguation is great, unless it costs clarity.

Pronouns can increase clarity. They can do this without imposing ambiguity. They can also increase ambiguity, but that's when you're using them wrong.

Technical writing uses pronouns. Good technical writing even shows *good* use of pronouns.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Umbran (Aug 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Technical writing uses pronouns. Good technical writing even shows *good* use of pronouns.




Okay, then.  So, when that technical writing needs to refer to a single person, but that person is explicitly not gender specific, what do you do?


----------



## Nifft (Aug 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Okay, then.  So, when that technical writing needs to refer to a single person, but that person is explicitly not gender specific, what do you do?



 "It" is how we refer to things that lack sex. "He or she" *explicitly* refers to a single person of *explicitly* ambiguous sex.


Look, either you're right -- and pronouns should be minimized in game writing because they're icky -- and all that means is that the singular "they" is bad, because all pronouns are bad.

*OR* you're wrong and I'm right -- and good pronouns can be good tools -- in which case the singular "they" is bad, for the reasons I've outlined already.

There's no way from your argument to any justification of the singular "they".

"_Proof your argument may have merit_", -- N


----------



## Krensky (Aug 12, 2010)

Other then that it's been used for five hundred years and still annoys grammar nazis and pendants.

English is a living language, there's no Academy of English decreeing it dead yet.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 12, 2010)

Krensky said:


> Other then that it's been used for five hundred years



 Some bad ideas are EVEN OLDER than 500 years.

Know what? They're still bad ideas.



Krensky said:


> and still annoys grammar nazis and pendants.



 Ah, name-calling, the highest form of rhetoric. You'll surely win hearts & minds like that!

Ciao, -- N


----------



## Umbran (Aug 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Look, either you're right -- and pronouns should be minimized in game writing because they're icky -- and all that means is that the singular "they" is bad, because all pronouns are bad.
> 
> *OR* you're wrong and I'm right -- and good pronouns can be good tools -- in which case the singular "they" is bad, for the reasons I've outlined already.
> 
> There's no way from your argument to any justification of the singular "they".




*OR* the third option that I'm trying to get at that you've not gotten yet: communication in writing is not a simple, one size (or one grammatical construction) fits all thing.  

As I noted earlier, the singular "they" has been around for centuries.  If it really were a horrible idea, it would have passed away in a display of linguistic Darwinism.  It has failed to die away.  The proof, as they say, is in the pudding - I need no more than empirical justification.  While this does not indicate that it is the best of all possible pronouns and should be used at every single turn or somesuch nonsense, it does indicate that it has enough use to justify its presence, and occasional use.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> My dislike for the singular "they" is purely functional: allowing it increases ambiguity, and there's no corresponding benefit.
> 
> For example:
> * "When a Wizard uses Bigby's Insulting Finger on a group of orcs, they are Dazed." _Who is Dazed?_




That's no worse than the situation where the wizard casts the spell on one orc, and the wizard and orc share a gender. If it's good enough for the gendered singular pronoun, it's good enough for the genderless ambiguous pronoun. 

He/she can actually increase ambiguity in unwanted ways. For instance:

* When the new doctor brought up the head nurse's insubordination up in the meeting, everyone agreed she was out of line.

Not only is this ambiguous, there is a good chance, if the doctor is female and the nurse is male, that you may have led your audience into a trap.

Ambiguity is not a reason to avoid "they," it's a reason to be careful in how you use ALL pronouns.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> Women's magazines are in the business of selling magazines, diets, clothing, and cosmetics to women.  They don't accomplish that goal by showing women that what they already have, they way they currently are, and they way they already look, is what men want.
> 
> Thus, women's magazines are not in the business of telling women what men actually want, and the pictures therein will not tell you.
> 
> If there's anything in the world that is telling women they aren't good enough, it isn't fantasy game art - it's women's magazines.




Unless they are gamers, or date gamers, in which case it is.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 12, 2010)

Hobo said:


> I never said Sean K. Reynolds was an authority on the subject.  What I said was that he's notorious for being over-the-top about sensitivity to stuff like this.
> 
> If you're over-the-topping him, your barometer is _way_ off.
> 
> Which, based on your oh-so-serious over-reaction to the Seoni Christmas card art and the very existance of the character of Seoni in general, I'd say was pretty obvious anyway.




How is a difference of opinion with him a sign of over-the-topping? Why is his notoriety a good gauge of what should be over-the-top?

The "You're too sensitive" argument, apart from misusing power in a scenario like this, is the logical fallacy of begging the question.

1. I can tell you're too sensitive because you are offended.
2. You are offended because you are too sensitive. 

It ventures very close to the tautology that anyone what makes someone too sensitive is being offended at all. The only prescription is to not be offended; that is, to accept the paradigm of the person abusing power.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 12, 2010)

*Umbran:* How the heck do you get from describing how technical writing -- and by YOUR OWN extension, game writing -- should look: 







Umbran said:


> For the latter, it occurs to me that gaming books bear more resemblance to technical writing than most other forms of prose.  And in technical writing, you do generally want to remove ambiguity, and be as specific as possible.  I would expect authors of such to minimize use of pronouns (with or without gender) for that reason.



 ... to this weaksauce "no right answer" cruft? 







Umbran said:


> *OR* the third option that I'm trying to get at that you've not gotten yet: communication in writing is not a simple, one size (or one grammatical construction) fits all thing.



 Even if we were talking about all things, though, singular "they" would still have no utility.



Umbran said:


> As I noted earlier, the singular "they" has been around for centuries.  If it really were a horrible idea, it would have passed away in a display of linguistic Darwinism.



 There's no such thing as "linguistic Darwinism" within a single language. You're confusing "provides a benefit" with "hasn't killed the species yet".

Seriously, your argument implies the human appendix is useful. Your argument is flawed.



Umbran said:


> It has failed to die away.  The proof, as they say, is in the pudding - I need no more than empirical justification.



 Again, the human appendix. Or rats, or politicians, or heroine abuse.



pawsplay said:


> That's no worse than the situation where the wizard casts the spell on one orc, and the wizard and orc share a gender. If it's good enough for the gendered singular pronoun, it's good enough for the genderless ambiguous pronoun.
> 
> He/she can actually increase ambiguity in unwanted ways. For instance:
> 
> * When the new doctor brought up the head nurse's insubordination up in the meeting, everyone agreed she was out of line.



 Watch this:

* When the new doctor brought up the head nurse's insubordination in the meeting, everyone agreed they were out of line.

In your sentence, there's an ambiguity between the doctor and the nurse. In my example (assuming we are allowing singular "they"), the ambiguity has expanded to include everyone in the meeting, as well as the doctor (singular) and the head nurse (singular).

Singular "they": it never helps.

"_Heh heh, you said 'head nurse', heh he heh_", -- N


----------



## Krensky (Aug 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Some bad ideas are EVEN OLDER than 500 years.
> 
> Know what? They're still bad ideas.




So thou would have us abandon the singular you? It's far, far younger the the singular or epicene they. English morphs and changes with the times. Singular they is in common usage and has been for a long time. Like all pronouns it can be ambiguous or confusing when improperly used, but it can also be clear, concise, and elegant.

Objections to it are pure prescriptive grammar. Someone decided singular they was bad, but there's no actual syntactic or semiotic reason. English has always been liberaly prescribed (see the old chestnut about defending the purity of the language). The French Academy was a bad idea when it was formed, it still is, and a similar body in English would properly be laughed out of existance.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 12, 2010)

Krensky said:


> So thou *wouldst * have us abandon the singular you?




Fixed it for you.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 12, 2010)

Krensky said:


> So thou would*st* have us abandon the singular you?



 Fixed, and not particularly.

However, I don't mind "y'all" as a functional replacement for plural "you".

I'm not against change, I'm just against *bad* change.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> In your sentence, there's an ambiguity between the doctor and the nurse. In my example (assuming we are allowing singular "they"), the ambiguity has expanded to include everyone in the meeting, as well as the doctor (singular) and the head nurse (singular).




So what? How is that any worse? 



> Singular "they": it never helps.




Not true. Assuming the person being spoken to in this exampe is unfamiliar with the doctor and nurse in question, it removes gender. Unless you are talking about a specific gender-related work situation, I don't see how identifying the gender of either person does anything but introduce the potential for bias. That is in fact the whole point: to neutralize examples where gender would be a distraction, or worse, a needless insult.


----------



## Krensky (Aug 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Fixed it for you.




No, you didn't. I was purpously using moden grammar with an obsolete word.

Thanks though.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 12, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> So what? How is that any worse?



 Because 3 is more than 2.

Your sentence (using "she") had an ambiguity between two parties. My sentence (using optionally singular "they") had an ambiguity between three parties.

3 > 2.



pawsplay said:


> Not true. Assuming the person being spoken to in this exampe is unfamiliar with the doctor and nurse in question, it removes gender. Unless you are talking about a specific gender-related work situation, I don't see how identifying the gender of either person does anything but introduce the potential for bias. That is in fact the whole point: to neutralize examples where gender would be a distraction, or worse, a needless insult.



 Wait. Are you asserting that being referred to as 'she' can be *insulting* to females?

, -- N


----------



## Krensky (Aug 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Fixed, and not particularly.
> 
> However, I don't mind "y'all" as a functional replacement for plural "you".
> 
> I'm not against change, I'm just against *bad* change.




You haven't show why it's bad, other then it was confusing in a sentance where any pronuon was confusing.

Singular they has been used since the 1300s. Overly strict grammaticians have been Quixoctically complaining about the whole time with no effect on usage.

Your argumnt also ignores that the typical use in a game is a distributive case, "When a character is hit they take damage."


----------



## Aus_Snow (Aug 12, 2010)

Nifft, while it's obvious you think you are right about this, that does not make it so. Learning the difference between belief and objective truth in this instance might be instructive for you.

I'll just go ahead and side with the many great writers and scholars with whom I happen to agree on this. Not to say many other great writers and scholars wouldn't agree with your stance, however! But anyway, you are of course free to believe what you will. Because, yeah, that's all it is. Might be better to simply accept that fact, and move on.


----------



## Krensky (Aug 12, 2010)

Duplicate post, please delete.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 12, 2010)

Krensky said:


> You haven't show why it's bad, other then it was confusing in a sentance where any pronuon was confusing.



 In that example, I showed that singular "they" was *more* confusing than any alternatives.

If confusing = bad, then more confusing = more bad.



Krensky said:


> Singular they has been used since the 1300s. Overly strict grammaticians have been Quixoctically complaining about the whole time with no effect on usage.



 Around that same time period they were also railing Quixotic against the Black Death. By now we've managed to handle that one. I'm sure that singular "they" is only slightly lower on The List.



Krensky said:


> Your argumnt also ignores that the typical use in a game is a distributive case, "When a character is hit they take damage."



 That looks like a disagreement in number to me.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Umbran (Aug 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> *Umbran:* How the heck do you get from describing how technical writing -- and by YOUR OWN extension, game writing -- should look:  ... to this weaksauce "no right answer" cruft?




Oh, I admit it wasn't a very well constructed step.  I'll try to get to the same point in just a moment or two...



> Even if we were talking about all things, though, singular "they" would still have no utility.




I don't think that is correct.  I will accept that it provides no new utility - you can always reconstruct a sentence so that some word(s) other than "they" is (or are) used.  Singular "they" is certainly redundant with several other ways of saying the same thing.

That's not a strong argument against it, though.  Redundancy is the root of flexibility, and is what allows language to flex to meet the needs of different styles.  Redundancy is what enables us to write poetry.  In heavy excess, it might be a problem, but I don't see that the language is having difficulty due to the excessive number of ways we can construct a reference to a singular gender neutral object.



> There's no such thing as "linguistic Darwinism" within a single language.




So long as there's more than one way to say a thing, there is competition.  If one form of saying something is truly dreadful, it gets dropped in favor of some other way of saying the same thing.  



> You're confusing "provides a benefit" with "hasn't killed the species yet".




No, I am not.  In even a simple evolutionary model, a thing may be beneficial, neutral, or harmful.  Outright bad and harmful things get weeded out.  beneficial things tend to get amplified, and neutral things tend to just sort of hang around until they become either harmful or beneficial.

I'm saying that this particular construction has been at least neutral, and possibly beneficial.  If it were really awful, a few centuries is enough time for it to have fallen by the wayside with so many other archaic forms.  I'm saying the verdict of centuries and millions of people using the language so far trumps you.



> Seriously, your argument implies the human appendix is useful. Your argument is flawed.




If you aren't speaking mathematics, then every argument, every analogy, has flaws.  

Unless you have some evidence that singular "they" is on the way out (like the human appendix), then I don't see your point as very strong.



> Singular "they": it never helps.




Your argument is flawed.

You present a couple of example constructions, and then assert that since use of the word is painfully ambiguous in those examples, that the use is bad in any and all contexts.  But, since you are choosing the examples, they are cherry-picked to support your point.  Furthermore, you present no evidence other than your personal assertion that the generalization from your examples is valid for the rest of the language.  

Your position so far ultimately relies on your personal authority to assert that generalization.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 12, 2010)

Umbran said:


> You present a couple of example constructions, and then assert that since use of the word is painfully ambiguous in those examples, that the use is bad in any and all contexts.  But, since you are choosing the examples, they are cherry-picked to support your point.  Furthermore, you present no evidence other than your personal assertion that the generalization from your examples is valid for the rest of the language.
> 
> Your position so far ultimately relies on your personal authority to assert that generalization.



 Well, what I'm really relying on is the inability of my opposition to provide any example sentence where singular "they" helps.

I've addressed examples made by other people (so your complaint about me cherry-picking is false), and I'm more than willing to address any examples you can come up with. IMHO that may be a fruitful avenue of discussion.

Amusingly, the arguments arrayed against me are where you'll see the appeals to authority:
- Appeal to popularity ("lots of people do it, it must be right")
- Appeal to antiquity ("500 years!")

All I got are examples, and the bold assertion that *you can't find one* which contradicts me. The interpretation of these examples does not rely on my "personal authority". Rather, I trust each reader to see the truth for themself.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Umbran (Aug 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Amusingly, the arguments arrayed against me are where you'll see the appeals to authority:
> - Appeal to popularity ("lots of people do it, it must be right")
> - Appeal to antiquity ("500 years!")




The appeal to antiquity is not just an appeal to antiquity - it is coupled to a specific mechanism (selection) through which antiquity matters.  

The appeal to popularity is an appeal to popularity, but given that language is defined by use, how many people use the structure does matter.

How does your authority matter?  



> All I got are examples, and the bold assertion that *you can't find one* which contradicts me.




Ah, but you see, you've already declared your absolute position.  We have no reason to expect you'd ever accept a contradiction.  Until you are willing to accept a judge other than yourself, it would be a fool's errand to try to contradict you.

_De gustibus non est disputandum_.  We have yet to establish that the matter is anything other than an issue of taste, upon which no individual can be disputed.


----------



## Krensky (Aug 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Rather, I trust each reader to see the truth for themself.




So distributive cases are fine when you use them. Got it.

And it's not an appeal to antiquity or popularity.

It's an appeal to common use.

You're not arguing in favor of a grammatical rule, you're arguing in favor of a stylistic one. Which is a prefrence.

Unless I missed the memo on the formation of a French style Academy of the English language and your appointment to it.

English is a living language, stop trying to kill it with strict prescriptional grammar. No one forces you to use it, but it's use is perfectly cromulant.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Because 3 is more than 2.
> 
> Your sentence (using "she") had an ambiguity between two parties. My sentence (using optionally singular "they") had an ambiguity between three parties.
> 
> 3 > 2.




We are not performing a numerical comparison. The question is, does sufficient ambiguity exist that the sentence may be uninformative or misinformative? If so, we are concerned about the likelihood and scope of the mistake, not the breadth of possibilities. Replacing "people in the room" with "people in northern China" doesn't make a sentence any more ambiguous.

AMBIGUOUS=True



> Wait. Are you asserting that being referred to as 'she' can be *insulting* to females?




Being referred to as females rather than women can be, although obviously different women feel differently about that. But no, obviously. What I am saying is that women may feel insulted when an unidentified person is referred to as she or her.

Consider:

I know someone with a crazy ex-spouse who is always trying to use the children in disagreements.
- Oh? Who is she?

I'd like to introduce you to the unit's new administrative assistant.
- I'd like to meet her.

I've hired a new housekeeper.
- Does she do windows?

My child is into ballet.
- How long has she been doing it?


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 12, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Amusingly, the arguments arrayed against me are where you'll see the appeals to authority:
> - Appeal to popularity ("lots of people do it, it must be right")
> - Appeal to antiquity ("500 years!")




Actually, those are appeals to evidence. The evidence is that singular they is acceptable to large numbers of people, and understood by essentially all English speakers. 

You left out appeals to not perpetuating sexist stereotypes, appeals to ambiguity being okay or even preferable in some situations, appeals to not wanting to type he/she eight hundred times, and appeals to wanting a pronoun when you wish to purposefully not disclose someone's gender.


----------



## nedjer (Aug 12, 2010)

So what we saying here, pronouns are the liquorice allsorts of the grammatical world - there's one or two you like now and again, but there's no way you want the full packet?


----------



## Nifft (Aug 13, 2010)

Umbran said:


> How does your authority matter?



 Show me where I invoke my authority -- rather than appealing to the reader's reason -- and I'll answer this one for you.

(I don't think any of my arguments rest on "my authority".)



Umbran said:


> Ah, but you see, you've already declared your absolute position.  We have no reason to expect you'd ever accept a contradiction.  Until you are willing to accept a judge other than yourself, it would be a fool's errand to try to contradict you.



 Same goes for you, buddy. And yet here I am, still trying reason, against your flurry of dismissal.

Give me an example where singular "they" helps. Just one. C'mon.



Krensky said:


> So distributive cases are fine when you use them. Got it.



 See how I underlined it? That was intended to convey sarcasm. "Themself" is blatantly incorrect. (... same as singular "they".)



Krensky said:


> You're not arguing in favor of a grammatical rule, you're arguing in favor of a stylistic one. Which is a prefrence.



 Actually I'm arguing a purely functional case. I'm saying that the singular "they" is the equivalent of an appendix: we'd be better off without it, since it never does any good, but sometimes it tries to kill us by exploding. JUST. LIKE. "THEY".



pawsplay said:


> We are not performing a numerical comparison. The question is, does sufficient ambiguity exist that the sentence may be uninformative or misinformative?



 Maybe you're not, but I am. I am asserting that ambiguity among THREE objects is MORE AMBIGUITY than ambiguity among TWO objects.

You can try to argue that:
True == 2; True == 3;
... but it's a disingenuous tactic at best.



pawsplay said:


> What I am saying is that women may feel insulted when an unidentified person is referred to as she or her.
> 
> Consider:
> 
> ...



 One member of a spousal disagreement is often female. I guess you are trying to imply that "crazy ex-spouse" == "she", but your question doesn't demand that at all.



pawsplay said:


> I'd like to introduce you to the unit's new administrative assistant.
> - I'd like to meet her.
> 
> I've hired a new housekeeper.
> ...



 ... I can't get upset about any of these assumptions. They're trivial to correct, and correcting them quickly would better serve your anti-stereotype agenda.

My friend is in prison.
- What did he do?



pawsplay said:


> Actually, those are appeals to evidence. The evidence is that singular they is acceptable to large numbers of people, and understood by essentially all English speakers.



 So, people haven't exterminated rats. You would argue that this means people like rats?

No, it means the effort to exterminate rats isn't worth the problem they pose to use.

Same deal with the appendix, by the way. It has NO BENEFIT, but neither does it kill enough of us to get itself ejected from the gene pool.



pawsplay said:


> You left out appeals to not perpetuating sexist stereotypes, appeals to ambiguity being okay or even preferable in some situations, appeals to not wanting to type he/she eight hundred times, and appeals to wanting a pronoun when you wish to purposefully not disclose someone's gender.



 Yeah, you're going to have to show me very clearly how *leaving the subject's sex ambiguous for the maximum duration* downplays any stereotypes.

If anything, leaving the sex ambiguous allows the stereotype to fester.

Video game example: compare the shock among the fans of finding out that Samus was female to the "shock" of finding out Chell's sex. The longer they left it ambiguous, the deeper the assumptions ran.



nedjer said:


> So what we saying here, pronouns are the liquorice allsorts of the grammatical world - there's one or two you like now and again, but there's no way you want the full packet?



 There should be an award for best use of humor to re-civilize a thread.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Krensky (Aug 13, 2010)

Nifft said:


> |See how I underlined it? That was intended to convey sarcasm. "Themself" is blatantly incorrect. (... same as singular "they".)




It's a distributive construct. Technically, they isn't even a pronoun in that sentence. It's a bound variable. Different logical relationship entirely.

Oh, and you STILL haven't given a good reason why it's wrong beyond proscriptive grammatical style.



> o, people haven't exterminated rats. You would argue that this means people like rats?
> 
> No, it means the effort to exterminate rats isn't worth the problem they pose to use.
> 
> Same deal with the appendix, by the way. It has NO BENEFIT, but neither does it kill enough of us to get itself ejected from the gene pool.




Um, talk about an improper, loaded analogy. This is a discussion of linguistics. Common use is the yard stick for determining vocabulary and grammar. If you are going to keep arguing against that, the frankly you don't know what you're talking about.

Oh, and modern medicine does show that the appendix does provide a benefit, so you're zero for two.



> Yeah, you're going to have to show me very clearly how leaving the subject's sex ambiguous for the maximum duration downplays any stereotypes.




The primary one that comes to mind is those cases where either the gender or the sex of the antecedent or quantifier is indeterminate or irrelevant but still present.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 13, 2010)

Krensky said:


> It's a distributive construct. Technically, they isn't even a pronoun in that sentence. It's a bound variable. Different logical relationship entirely.
> 
> Oh, and you STILL haven't given a good reason why it's wrong beyond proscriptive grammatical style.



 Joking aside: my case has never been that it is *wrong*.

My case has always been that it is *bad*.

- Why is it bad? Because it never helps, and it sometimes hurts.

- How does it hurt? By increasing ambiguity.



Krensky said:


> The primary one that comes to mind is those cases where either the gender or the sex of the antecedent or quantifier is indeterminate or irrelevant but still present.



 Don't be coy. Whip it out. Let's take a gander at whatever you're talking about.

Also: please address the observation that letting an assumption fester will increase surprise upon unveiling. Show how letting an assumption fester *decreases stereotypes*.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## Krensky (Aug 13, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Joking aside: my case has never been that it is *wrong*.
> 
> My case has always been that it is *bad*.
> 
> ...




As has been pointed out, sometimes ambiguity is a good thing, because what you're dealing with is ambiguous. All pronouns can increase ambiguity. Abandoning thou for the singular you can increase ambiguity. It certainly led to the hilarious use of thou as a respectful and formal form of address.

I gave you an example. It helps because it doesn't annoy people like pawsplay who feel the generic masculine is offensive or off putting. It doesn't offend... well I don't think anyone's admitted to being annoyed at using she as a generic pronoun in this thread but it won't annoy them. It doesn't annoy people like me by using clumsy constructions, avoiding pronouns, or (worst of all) alternating between he and she as the generic pronoun (seriously people, pick one, run with it, and take your lumps).

It only seems to ignore a tiny group of people, like yourself, who insist it's wrong on purely proscriptive grounds despite common usage since the fourteenth century. Again, in a living language common use is the primary determiner of correctness or (since you moved the goal posts) goodness.



Nifft said:


> Don't be coy. Whip it out. Let's take a gander at whatever you're talking about.
> 
> Also: please address the observation that letting an assumption fester will increase surprise upon unveiling. Show how letting an assumption fester *decreases stereotypes*.




As an extreme case, a trans-gender person who does not identify as either male or female, or (even more extreme) identifies as non-gendered. 

Anther would be a corporate person.

As a less extreme case when talking about a generic individual of indeterminate sex or in some cases gender, although I'm not sure if gendered pronouns in things like medical advice and products relating to sex specific items annoy trans-gendered people or not. 

"When the candidate is finished with the written exam, they should be directed to the physical examination room." You don't know the gender (presumably) of the candidate and because, logically, the sentence means "For all candidates, the candidate was directed to the physical examination room upon finishing the candidate's written exam.".

Now one for you. 'Fix' this:


Mary saw everyone before John noticed them.


As for the other thing, that's pawsplay's beef not mine. Unlike pawsplay (making what I feel is a safe assumption here) I am not really a fan of gender-neutral English since in my personal experience it's often either a tool and justification to belittle others (Hello Professor Smithwicke!  ) or (more typically) is stirring up annoyance over small things instead of addressing large issues. That said, if you are attempting to be unbiased in language you have two choices when you need a gender neutral pronoun. They or one stolen from another language. While English has a reputation for muggling other languages for vocabulary, it never really seems to take when it's intentionally done for this sort of thing. Mu hasn't caught on, for instance. 

However, I think you read pawsplay wrong. The interrogative responses showed bias. It would, barring knowledge not presented in the example, have been more correct and unbiased to use the epicene they in them because the interrogator (or interrogatrix) doesn't know the gender of the subject.

As an aside, I think we need more gender specific titles. Words ending in -rix are fun.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 13, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Maybe you're not, but I am. I am asserting that ambiguity among THREE objects is MORE AMBIGUITY than ambiguity among TWO objects.




That's a very strange position. How do you measure ambiguity?



> So, people haven't exterminated rats. You would argue that this means people like rats?




How is a pronoun like a rat?



> Same deal with the appendix, by the way. It has NO BENEFIT, but neither does it kill enough of us to get itself ejected from the gene pool.




Much like mandatory gendering of pronouns.



> Yeah, you're going to have to show me very clearly how *leaving the subject's sex ambiguous for the maximum duration* downplays any stereotypes.




Why? I already believe it. Whether or not you choose to respect this viewpoint in other people is really your concern. It does not matter to me very much that you agree with my position, only that you understand what it is and that my justifications mean I am unlikely to change it.

I don't see any evidence that you are well-informed in linguistics or sociology. The vibe I get is, "I prefer that language not change, and I assert that a narrow utility in clarifying certain sentences trumps any and all questions of social justice." Can you clarify for me if that is your position?


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 13, 2010)

To the gods of gaming and the mighty demons of the Internet, I offer abject apologies and the sacrifice of a flumph in penance for my part in starting this insane pronoun tangent.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 13, 2010)

Krensky said:


> It only seems to ignore a tiny group of people, like yourself, who insist it's wrong on purely proscriptive grounds



 It takes someone very special to make an argument which is directly contradicted by the text he quoted in his own post.



Krensky said:


> "When the candidate is finished with the written exam, they should be directed to the physical examination room." You don't know the gender (presumably) of the candidate and because, logically, the sentence means "For all candidates, the candidate was directed to the physical examination room upon finishing the candidate's written exam.".



 Make "candidate" plural, or pick one ("he" or "she"), or just use "he or she" if you expect your proctor to be a nit-picky twit.



Krensky said:


> Now one for you. 'Fix' this:
> 
> Mary saw everyone before John noticed them.



 What's to fix? "Them" is plural in this case, referring to either everyone or (everyone + Mary).



pawsplay said:


> That's a very strange position. How do you measure ambiguity?



 There is a ball in one of these boxes:
[_] [_]  <-- uncertainty amongst two things

There is a ball in one of these boxes:
[_] [_] [_]  <-- uncertainty amongst three things

There's nothing tricky going on here. Are we able to get past this one now?



pawsplay said:


> The vibe I get is, "I prefer that language not change, and I assert that a narrow utility in clarifying certain sentences trumps any and all questions of social justice." Can you clarify for me if that is your position?



 Reading for content would probably help you more than looking for "vibe"s.

In specific, this content, posted right here in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5279479-post153.html

Cheers, -- N

PS: Since I have to keep repeating the same very basic things, it's becoming hard to consider this a discussion any more.


----------



## nedjer (Aug 13, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Whip it out.




wtf? No Dolly Mixtures for you


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 13, 2010)

Nifft said:


> There is a ball in one of these boxes:
> [_] [_]  <-- uncertainty amongst two things
> 
> There is a ball in one of these boxes:
> ...




Sorry. To me it still looks like you're making an unfounded leap that more numeric possibilities means there is more ambiguity. 

This glass contains either delicious soda or deadly poison.
This glass contains either delicious soda or a dark brown solution laced with potassium cyanide.

Which is more ambiguous? Should I drink the soda? 

I don't know how much statistics you know, but you seem to be confusing a categorical variable with a scaling one.



> Reading for content would probably help you more than looking for "vibe"s.
> 
> In specific, this content, posted right here in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5279479-post153.html




I read. I asked you a direct question. If you don't have anything to say, don't push that on me.



> PS: Since I have to keep repeating the same very basic things, it's becoming hard to consider this a discussion any more.




Maybe if you're repeating the same basic things over and over while other people are raising new objections, it means your argument isn't persuasive. Maybe it's time to let go of that frustration, and focus on saying what is really important to you.


----------



## nedjer (Aug 13, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I don't know how much statistics you know




The more I learned about statistics the less I knew


----------



## Nifft (Aug 13, 2010)

nedjer said:


> wtf? No Dolly Mixtures for you



*but we hunger for dolly mixture*



pawsplay said:


> This glass contains either delicious soda or deadly poison.
> This glass contains either delicious soda or a dark brown solution laced with potassium cyanide.
> 
> Which is more ambiguous? Should I drink the soda?
> ...



 I'm saying that one word which can map to THREE referents is more ambiguous than one word which can map to TWO referents.



pawsplay said:


> I read. I asked you a direct question. If you don't have anything to say, don't push that on me.



 If you read, then you should already know the answer. But I'll humor you, in the hope that this time it sticks:

*I prefer that language not change,*
False, and directly contradicted by previous statements.

*and I assert that a narrow utility in clarifying certain sentences trumps any and all questions of social justice*
HA HA HA HA HA.

There may be ways for language to influence social justice, but muddying the pronoun pool isn't one of them. 



pawsplay said:


> Maybe if you're repeating the same basic things over and over while other people are raising new objections



 You certainly aren't raising any new objections.
- "Ambiguity can be measured? NO WAY!" -> this marks your 5th time raising this "new objection"
- "Aren't you just some prescriptivist?"

Go get some new objections, let me see what they look like.



nedjer said:


> The more I learned about statistics the less I knew



 5 out of 4 dentists agree.

Cheers, -- N


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 13, 2010)

Nifft said:


> I'm saying that one word which can map to THREE referents is more ambiguous than one word which can map to TWO referents.




It is more ambiguous if I don't know which particular poison might be in the non-soda? Please answer.


----------



## nedjer (Aug 14, 2010)

Nifft said:


> *but we hunger for dolly mixture*




By chance the gods have favoured me tonight. I've a bag of Pick n'Mix here with . . . lets have a look: some cola bottles, jelly worms, (now I'm getting somewhere), there are strawberry bonbons in here and a few lemon sherbets . . . a bright blue jelly and foam snake . . . time to explore the meaning of self-indulgence


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 14, 2010)

nedjer said:


> The more I learned about statistics the less I knew




That's because 99% of statistics are made up on the spot.


----------



## AngryMojo (Aug 14, 2010)

shidaku said:


> That's because 99% of statistics are made up on the spot.




12% of all people know that.


----------



## Hussar (Aug 14, 2010)

I gotta admit, this is ... an entertaining thread.  

BTW, what is a "dolly mixture"?


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 14, 2010)

Hussar said:


> I gotta admit, this is ... an entertaining thread.
> 
> BTW, what is a "dolly mixture"?




Dolly mixture: Dolly mixture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 14, 2010)

1. Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals? 

Depends. If in a game I need a helpless damsel in distress I'll use that sterotype. If I need a strong female general, queen, barmaid or whatever, I'll use that one. One person's sexism is another persons just fine.

2. Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers? 

Yes.

3. Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group? 

Yes. I have roleplayed with several women on my twenty odd years of gaming. Until recently I had two women playing in my D&D game (unfortunately one had to drop out).

3. Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities? 

I would but it's up to them if they wish to do so.

4. Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs? 

Nope. It's their business not mine.

5. Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs? 

Define youngster. I wouldn't game with anyone under 16 and even then they would need some degree of maturity.

6. Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids equally or females). 

Yes. This is standard par for the course.

7. Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts? 

No. I wouldn't say my games are sexist at all, but again I'm not going to not use certain imagery or concepts if they work for what's needed.

8. Have you or AYWT actively discourage obvious and persistent sexism at your game table, e.g. don't laugh along with the jokes/ speak up if a female player appears uncomfortable with some of what's being said?

No. We're all grown ups and we can handle that sort of thing. In my experience anyway, women are just as likely to be making the sexual jokes/innuendo's and what have you at the table as the guys.


----------



## nedjer (Aug 14, 2010)

DragonLancer said:


> Define youngster.




Anyone foolish enough to eat a huge jelly-foam snake and a bunch of strawberry bonbons just before bedtime


----------



## DragonLancer (Aug 14, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Anyone foolish enough to eat a huge jelly-foam snake and a bunch of strawberry bonbons just before bedtime




I know several people who would do that and I wouldn't define any of them as youngsters!


----------



## nedjer (Aug 14, 2010)

OK, it's now time to House Rule this thread. From this point on *it's minus XP to anyone who doesn't reference at least one delicious confectionery when they post to the thread*. Apologies for the railroading 



DragonLancer said:


> I know several people who would do that and I wouldn't define any of them as youngsters!




Yeah, that one seems to be very dependent on context. As a guy in his 20s posted, wandering down the local park waving a copy of 4e and handing out Jelly Tots to the kids would be ever so slightly inappropriate.

On the other hand, I'm paid, (and police checked), to use roleplaying and design games in kids' learning programmes, so I'm expected to motivate kids to get involved.


----------



## blargney the second (Aug 14, 2010)

Wik said:


> 7.  What the hell?  The girls in my group are bloodthirsty minxes.  Just last week, when I had to do a one-off session, I was told by one of the girls that she needed her "killing fix".



*lol* Yeah, you should play with our friend Carrie some time.  She's even more bloodthirsty, and it's awesome! 
-blarg


----------



## Wik (Aug 14, 2010)

blargney the second said:


> *lol* Yeah, you should play with our friend Carrie some time.  She's even more bloodthirsty, and it's awesome!
> -blarg




Dear lord.  What is it about female gamers in Victoria!?  Are they all just killing machines, acting contrary to their gender?   

Set it up, and I'm in.  It's always fun playing with the bloodthirsty.  Especially because, well, I'm pretty much the polar opposite in game (I like being the coward!).


----------



## jonesy (Aug 15, 2010)

Wik said:


> Are they all just killing machines, acting contrary to their gender?



Contrary to their gender? Jesus, man. 

You should try crossing a scandinavian chick sometimes. You'd regret it for the rest of your short sorry life. That pretty petite swede will total you like a wrecking ball on a Datsun 710. 

And what about all those nature documentaries. 

Yes, this is tongue in cheek. (Or was that sarcasm?) Yes. No.


----------



## Wik (Aug 15, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Contrary to their gender? Jesus, man.
> 
> You should try crossing a scandinavian chick sometimes. You'd regret it for the rest of your short sorry life. That pretty petite swede will total you like a wrecking ball on a Datsun 710.
> 
> ...




Ha.  Fully agreed.  Hence the sarcasm in my post - all of the women I've seen in gaming are pure monsters when it comes to the murder and the violence.  And I'm sure they kick puppies in their spare time.


----------



## Sunseeker (Aug 15, 2010)

Wik said:


> Ha.  Fully agreed.  Hence the sarcasm in my post - all of the women I've seen in gaming are pure monsters when it comes to the murder and the violence.  And I'm sure they kick puppies in their spare time.




In general I have to agree, even if the books and imagery portray women as sex-ready man-totes, I think most of the time girls and women use the RP experience to break all those normal societal roles.  While that imagery may be effective at seducing younger girls, I think most women past their 20's have already decided how they want to live their lives, and those that want to live their lives as determined by the whims of social norms probably aren't going to be playing tabletop games.


----------



## nai_cha (Aug 15, 2010)

Wik said:


> all of the women I've seen in gaming are pure monsters when it comes to the murder and the violence.




Looking at the 4 women (out of 6 players) in our group:

(1) one gets antsy if it's too long between combat encounters
(2) one loves dealing maximum damage and mayhem when she's a player and is diabolical when she's the DM (surprise! 8 dragons, guys! after 3 consecutive encounters with solos!)
(3) one refers to our weekend games as "my weekly dose for hitting things"
(4) and well, there's me, but I think I'm pretty tame- I'm a striker, I'm just doing my job.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 21, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> It is more ambiguous if I don't know which particular poison might be in the non-soda? Please answer.



 Yes, there's a world of difference between these cocktails:
- Gin (alcohol is a poison) - suboptimal
- Gin and Tonic (alcohol and quinine are both poisons) - optimal
- Gin, Tonic and Cyanide (three poisons) - NOT OPTIMAL AT ALL

See the pattern here? 1 ≠ 2 ≠ 3.

"_Be picky with your poisons_", -- N


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 22, 2010)

Nifft said:


> Yes, there's a world of difference between these cocktails:
> - Gin (alcohol is a poison) - suboptimal
> - Gin and Tonic (alcohol and quinine are both poisons) - optimal
> - Gin, Tonic and Cyanide (three poisons) - NOT OPTIMAL AT ALL
> ...




I specified a deadly poison.



			
				pawsplay said:
			
		

> This glass contains either delicious soda or deadly poison.




So, yeah, I do see a pattern. I ask a straight question, you don't answer it, then claim victory while moving goalposts. As this is a tangent of a tangent, consider the subject dropped.


----------



## jonesy (Aug 22, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> I specified a deadly poison.



Alcohol is a deadly poison. It's all about the dosage. I say this as someone who has had a family member die of alcohol poisoning, and as someone who has friends who work in a hospital where they offer therapy and counselling to alcoholics.


----------



## pawsplay (Aug 22, 2010)

jonesy said:


> Alcohol is a deadly poison. It's all about the dosage. I say this as someone who has had a family member die of alcohol poisoning, and as someone who has friends who work in a hospital where they offer therapy and counselling to alcoholics.




Exactly. Water is a deadly poison, at the right dosage. Obviously, a gin and tonic is not "a deadly poison."


----------



## jonesy (Aug 22, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> Exactly. Water is a deadly poison, at the right dosage. Obviously, a gin and tonic is not "a deadly poison."



But you were talking about whether something was more or less ambigous. A gin and tonic is more ambiguous than a gin, because the dosage is harder to calculate. When there's only one poison it is easy. When there's more you can't know for sure what the percentages of the mix are without thorough testing.


----------



## Nifft (Aug 22, 2010)

jonesy said:


> But you were talking about whether something was more or less ambigous. A gin and tonic is more ambiguous than a gin, because the dosage is harder to calculate. When there's only one poison it is easy. When there's more you can't know for sure what the percentages of the mix are without thorough testing.



 Yep, especially not when he hasn't specified the size of the dose -- we're talking about a pint of the stuff, right?

In any case, this is a tangent off of a tangent. I think if you had a point, you've lost it. The important lesson here is that, no matter how deep a hole you dug for yourself, singular "they" never helped you out of it.

Singular "they": it never helps.

"_And knowing is half the battle!_", -- N


----------



## Hussar (Aug 31, 2010)

Heh, just saw this article Why isn't the a Gender neutral Pronoun at Futurismic.

Thought it was fitting for this thread.


----------



## Umbran (Aug 31, 2010)

Nifft said:


> The important lesson here is that, no matter how deep a hole you dug for yourself, singular "they" never helped you out of it.




No, I think the important lesson is, "Having the last word doesn't make you correct."


----------



## Cadfan (Aug 31, 2010)

1. Yes.

2. Yes.  This one is difficult because its hard to do this without making oversensitive males feel like they're under attack.  Its also particularly difficult because I do think that there's an appropriate place for goggling at pinup art, I just don't think that place is in a coed setting where women are intended to feel like they're part of the group instead of the group's quarry.  Maybe this would explain how I feel about it... I think its ok if some things in life are a "boy's club."  Boys need clubs too, and part of growing up is engaging in that sort of lame, pubescent "ale and whores" joking that quite understandably makes most females uncomfortable.  But an entire social activity shouldn't be a boy's club; that's exclusionary.  Negotiating the difference between these two values is a genuine difficulty.

3. I would be if I were recruiting.  I'm not.  My group is made up of people I knew from before we played.  It is 50% female.  The only significant other playing only because his partner is playing is male.

4. I would be willing to if I knew of a way to usefully do so.  I do go out of my way to get people to play eurogames.

5. Yes.

6. I'm not a kid person.  I'd applaud you for doing it though.

7. I would if I felt it was needed.  Overall, I haven't found this to be a problem.

8. Hadn't found the need to do so.

9. Yes, I do this.


----------



## Odhanan (Aug 31, 2010)

nedjer said:


> Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between  the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?
> Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers?
> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?
> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?
> ...




1. Yes.
2. _Some_? Yes. For others, no.
3. Yes. My Ptolus campaign group was 100% female but for me, the DM.
4. No, not especially. That's their choice to go further than our game and participate to RPG communities. I'll encourage it, for sure, but not go out of my way to push them towards it.
5. I remember discussing it on Monte Cook's forums, actually, but not in the sense that women were "unfairly" portrayed in RPGs. I was pointing out that some women actually don't care or LIKE playing these women, while others might be indeed bothered by such representations. I distinctly remember Sue Cook pointing out she wasn't bothered by chainmail bikinis and such, for instance.
6. Sure.
7. Sure. I always do adapt the game's contents to the particular players' expectations. That's part of the job.
8. I don't need to. I don't go for sexist content. I don't care for it.
9. Never happened to me. All the women I've played with had humor, and were quite capable of shooting right back at men if someone was making a stupid joke. Sounds to me like the women you know need to grow some guts and either learn about witty humor, or confront it head on and point out they don't like it. It almost sounds to me like you're doing some reverse-sexism, by white-knighting women when they are often quite capable of defending themselves. What gives?


----------



## Insight (Aug 31, 2010)

I'm more than a little surprised that, given the subject matter, this thread hasn't been shut down yet.  I hope intelligent discussion can continue.


----------



## Dausuul (Aug 31, 2010)

Odhanan said:


> It almost sounds to me like you're doing some reverse-sexism, by white-knighting women when they are often quite capable of defending themselves. What gives?




Complaining on someone else's behalf that that person is being white-knighted... irony, thy name is Internet.


----------



## Afrodyte (Sep 5, 2010)

pawsplay said:


> You left out appeals to not perpetuating sexist stereotypes, appeals to ambiguity being okay or even preferable in some situations, appeals to not wanting to type he/she eight hundred times, and appeals to wanting a pronoun when you wish to purposefully not disclose someone's gender.




Yay for going beyond gender binaries! And for undermining male by default!


----------



## Afrodyte (Sep 5, 2010)

I don't believe I'm your intended audience for this (assuming that you're speaking to or about male gamers when you ask these questions), but it's an interesting topic, so I want to contribute.


> Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between  the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?




There's no willing or unwilling about it. It's something I do simply by virtue of being a woman living in a sexist society. There's nothing logical or rational about it - it's a kind of instinct I have, sort of the way some unfamiliar guys can feel "off" or creepy when you meet him.



> Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers?




Again, there's no willing or unwilling about it. I feel either encouraged or discouraged because the images tell me what women are meant to be in that world.



> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?




No. Generally speaking I am the woman who was recruited into the group. It's more a question of getting me to _stay_. It helps if the group doesn't get me in and then proceed to talk over me and/or tell me what to do.



> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?




I join things like that on my own. As you may have seen, it's more a matter of not discouraging me than it is of encouraging me. A subtle but important difference.



> Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs?




Unfortunately, the way many male gamers react to even the slightest critique or the slightest attempt at increasing social consciousness makes me realize it's really not worth it.



> Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs?




No. I'm cool with teenagers, but many of the things I want to explore in gaming would be a little much for a 12-year-old.



> Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids equally or females).




No. And I think that's the wrong way to go about it. Why is simply asking us what we want is so damn hard?



> Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts?




I don't buy that crap if I can help it. But if it's in the core rules, and I really like the system or the setting, there's not much I can do. Why deprive myself for the image of inclusion instead of calling on fellow gamers to practice greater inclusiveness themselves?



> Have you or AYWT actively discourage obvious and persistent sexism at your game table, e.g. don't laugh along with the jokes/ speak up if a female player appears uncomfortable with some of what's being said?




Yes. Especially when the men at the table act like I'm invisible or that I'm not a woman because they don't want to sleep with me. I've done it before when my group was talking about some "hot Asian girls" like they were packs of meat. I . . . wasn't too keen on that, and I expressed my displeasure with a curt, "Not cool." They knew it was pretty messed up because I didn't even have to explain it.


----------



## nedjer (Sep 5, 2010)

Afrodyte said:


> I don't believe I'm your intended audience for this (assuming that you're speaking to or about male gamers when you ask these questions), but it's an interesting topic, so I want to contribute.
> 
> 
> There's no willing or unwilling about it. It's something I do simply by virtue of being a woman living in a sexist society. There's nothing logical or rational about it - it's a kind of instinct I have, sort of the way some unfamiliar guys can feel "off" or creepy when you meet him.
> ...




That was meant to be a LOL  not a . . .


----------



## Odhanan (Sep 5, 2010)

Dausuul said:


> Complaining on someone else's behalf that that person is being white-knighted... irony, thy name is Internet.



Indeed. I think there's even _more_ irony to it as you think there is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 5, 2010)

nedjer said:


> [*] Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between  the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?



Yes.


> [*]  Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers?



Yes.  I also try to put Fantasy art into its proper context: who makes it, who the main consumers are, and where you can find either positive female portrayals or negative male ones.  (Hint: some guys aren't pleased about how many males are portrayed as misogynistic brutes in fantasy art.)


> [*]  Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?



No, I treat 'em just like the guys.  You're welcome to join, but I don't actively recruit _anyone._


> [*]  Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?



No, I treat 'em just like the guys.  If they ask, I'll tell 'em, but I'm not a missionary for the hobby.


> [*]  Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs?



I'd be willing to if I ran into more- to date, I've only encountered a couple, and they were ahead of the curve.

Usually, though, I just vote with my $$$.  There was a line of adventures I used to see carried in my FLGS that featured women on every cover.  And even though the art was executed rather professionally, each one looked like the woman was in some kind of stereotypical hooker/stripper pose.  As in, in some kind of contortion you'd usually see wrapped around a pole or beckoning someone to "hidden delights."  I refused to even pick one up to see if the adventures were worth a damn.

Eventually, they all wound up in the discount section...then the clearance bin.


> [*]  Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs?




Sure- I've initiated a couple of dozen kids into the hobby.


> [*]  Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids equally or females).




Well, I gave them my best efforts to make for a fun game while teaching them the ropes.  (Whether I succeeded is a matter of THEIR opinion.)

To aid in this, I usually try to have a veteran gamer as part of the adventuring group to help guide them along.


> [*]  Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts?




Yep. (See above.)
[*]  Have you or AYWT actively discourage obvious and persistent sexism at your game table, e.g. don't laugh along with the jokes/ speak up if a female player appears uncomfortable with some of what's being said?


----------



## DireWereTeddy (Sep 6, 2010)

nedjer said:


> The OP on 'Girls (females) in D&D/ Roleplaying' manages to/ sets out to completely skip the question of attitudes to, (and attitudes about doing anything about attitudes to), women TRPG players. Time to 'fess up' properly:




While I believe that discrimination (of any kind) tends to be called out more than it actually happens, I am still opposed to it.



> Have you or are you willing to (AYWT) make a distinction between the positive portrayal of women in games/ gaming and sexist portrayals?




Of course.



> Have you or AYWT accept that the consistent use of pictures of bikini-clad women strolling through snowfields alongside rug-wrapped barbarian men is potentially discouraging for some female gamers?




Yes. Just as loincloth-clad Mr. Universe barbarians can be equally discouraging to some male gamers.



> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to recruit or encourage girls/ females to join a gaming group?




I don't know if I'd 'gone out of my way,' but I am willing to encourage females who are interested or potentially interested in the hobby to give it a try. I've done so with my wife. And I will be introducing two new players to the game (a husband and wife) later this week after I receive my Red Box. She's actually more interested in the game than he is.



> Have you or AYWT go out of your way to encourage girls/ females to join RPG communities?




As above, I'm not sure I'd 'go out of my way,' but if someone expressed interest or seemed to potentially be interested, I certainly would.



> Have you or AYWT tell a publisher, (by email, blog or f2F), that you'd like to see more positive portrayals of women in RPGs?




If I purchase or encounter a product that I feel negatively represents women in an RPG, certainly so. I'm not just going to randomly e-mail, comment, or bring the topic up though.



> Have you or AYWT present youngsters with equal opportunities to get involved in RPGs?




There's a such thing as an unequal opportunity to get involved in an RPG? How does that go, 'Sure, you can play with us, but you girlfriend has to just sit there and watch.'?

Sorry, I started getting a little snarky. Of course I am.



> Have you or AYWT adapt rules, settings and gameplay to offer a mix or balance of mystery, exploration, investigation, characterisation and novelty alongside combat-focused gameplay? (Either to encourage all kids equally or females).




If that's what the players are interested in, of course. I'd do that for any group, regardless of gender, age, or other makeup.



> Have you or AYWT adjust your RPG purchasing habits to at least limit sexist content/ contexts?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## MeinaAeon (Feb 11, 2011)

*the answers from my point of view*

looking back on the old novels yea they were all sexist but it to this day sex sells and alot of guys dream about those chain mail bikini girls *chuckles * when i host a game i try to balance and put in alittle something for all but i also personally hate stereotypes so try to also put new spins and views on npc females and males   Also if some one has a complaint in my games then i listen if it seems  reasonable i will change it for them or not reuse that thing they did not enjoy but if it is something that is just illogical to complain on or it's some one complaining on the whole scenario then i wont take there complaints to heart normally ..... but remember it's a game suppose to be fun thus that means it's a effort on the DM's then the opinions of the players  so if your a dm and dont like it change it nothing is set in stone rules wise ...well almost anything.


----------

